COMM 533 (Weekly Notes 9,10,11,12,13,14)

COMMUNICATION THEORY

E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F

General Editors

Editorial Board

Stephen W. Littlejohn University of New Mexico

Karen A. Foss University of New Mexico

Editorial Board Brenda J. Allen

University of Colorado Denver

J. Kevin Barge Texas A&M University

Roger de la Garde Laval University

Lisa A. Flores University of Colorado Boulder

Vijai N. Giri Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Charlotte Kroløkke University of Southern Denmark

Mark P. Orbe Western Michigan University

James Taylor University of Montreal

Ingrid Volkmer University of Melbourne

COMMUNICATION THEORY

E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F

E D I T O R S

Stephen W. Littlejohn Karen A. Foss University of New Mexico

Copyright © 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information:

SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: [email protected]

SAGE Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London, EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 33 Pekin Street #02–01 Far East Square Singapore 048763

Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of communication theory / Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. Foss, editors.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4129-5937-7 (cloth)

1. Communication—Encyclopedias. 2. Information theory—Encyclopedias. 3. Linguistics—Encyclopedias. I. Littlejohn, Stephen W. II. Foss, Karen A. P87.5.E496 2009 302.203—dc22 2009002948

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

09 10 11 12 13 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Publisher: Rolf A. Janke Acquisitions Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson Editorial Assistant: Michele Thompson Developmental Editor: Yvette Pollastrini Reference Systems Manager: Leticia Gutierrez Reference Systems Coordinator: Laura Notton Production Editor: Kate Schroeder Copyeditors: Bonnie Freeman, Renee Willers Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd. Proofreaders: Kevin Gleason, Sandy Zilka Livingston Indexer: Joan Shapiro Cover Designer: Candice Harman Marketing Manager: Amberlyn McKay

Contents

List of Entries vii Reader’s Guide xiii

Theorists xxiii About the Editors and Editorial Board xliii

Contributors xlvii Introduction li Chronology lv

Entries

A 1 M 607 B 75 N 673 C 87 O 695 D 291 P 727 E 327 Q 817 F 371 R 823 G 421 S 867 H 463 T 955 I 487 U 973 J 573 V 981 K 581 W 1007 L 585 Y 1013

Selected Bibliography of Major Works by Topic 1015

Index 1055

vii

List of Entries

Accommodation Theory Accounts and Account Giving Action Assembly Theory Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis Activation Theory of Information Exposure Activity Theory Actor–Network Theory Advertising Theories Affect-Dependent Theory of Stimulus

Arrangements Afrocentricity Agency Agenda-Setting Theory Aggressiveness. See Argumentativeness,

Assertiveness, and Verbal Aggressiveness Theory

Americanization of Media Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory Archeology and Genealogy Argumentation Theories Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal

Aggressiveness Theory Asian Communication Theory Attachment Theory Attitude Accessibility Theory. See Cognitive

Theories Attitude Theory Attribution Theory Audience Theories Autoethnography Autopoiesis. See Cybernetics Axiology

Balance Theory. See Attitude Theory; Co-Orientation Theory; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

Bargaining. See Conflict Communication Theories; Negotiation Theory

Behaviorism. See Communication Skills Theories; Humanistic Perspective; Learning and Communication

Biological Approaches. See Communibiology Black Feminist Epistemology Bona Fide Group Theory Broadcasting Theories Buddhist Communication Theory

Campaign Communication Theories Chicana Feminism Chinese Harmony Theory Chronemics Citizenship Classical Rhetorical Theory Co-Cultural Theory Cognitive Dissonance Theory Cognitive Rules Model. See Cognitive Theories Cognitive Theories Collective Information Sampling Communibiology Communication Accommodation Theory. See

Accommodation Theory Communication Across the Life Span Communication and Language Acquisition and

Development Communication Apprehension. See Social and

Communicative Anxiety Communication Goal Theories Communication in Later Life Communication Skills Theories Communication Theory of Identity Communicative Action Theory Community Community of Practice Competence Theories Complexity and Communication Compliance Gaining Strategies

viii List of Entries

Complicity Theory Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking.

See Uncertainty Management Theories Computer-Mediated Communication Conflict Communication Theories Confucian Communication Theory Consequentiality of Communication Consistency Theories. See Attitude Theory;

Cognitive Dissonance Theory; Co-Orientation Theory; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

Constitutive View of Communication Construction-Integration Model. See Cognitive

Theories Constructivism Contextual Theory of Interethnic

Communication Convergence Theory Conversational Constraints Theory Conversation Analysis Coordinated Management of Meaning Co-Orientation Theory Corporate Campaign Theories Corporate Colonization Theory Correspondence Theory. See Language and

Communication; Meaning Theories; Metatheory

Creativity in Groups Critical Communication Pedagogy Critical Constructivism Critical Cultural Studies. See Cultural Studies Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Ethnography Critical Organizational Communication Critical Race Theory Critical Rhetoric Critical Theory Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory Cross-Cultural Communication Cross-Cultural Decision Making Cultivation Theory Cultural Contracts Theory Cultural Identity Theory Cultural Indicators Cultural Performance Theory Cultural Studies Cultural Theories of Health Communication Cultural Types Theories Culture and Communication Culture Industries. See Cultural Studies;

Postmodern Theory Cybernetics

Daoism. See Taoist Communication Theory Deception Detection Deconstruction Definitions of Communication Deliberative Democratic Theories Dependency Theories. See Asian Communication

Theory; Digital Divide; Flow and Contra- Flow; Free Flow Doctrine; Informatization; International Communication Theories; International Development Theories; New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO); Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Dialogue Theories Diaspora Diffusion of Innovations Digital Cultures Digital Divide Diplomacy. See Media Diplomacy Discourse Theory and Analysis Documentary Film Theories Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group

Cognition and Social Influence Dyadic Power Theory Dynamic Memory Model. See Cognitive Theories

Effective Intercultural Workgroup Communication Theory

Elaborated and Restricted Codes Elaboration Likelihood Theory Emotion and Communication Empathy Empiricism Entertainment–Education Environmental Communication Theories Epistemology Ethics Theories Ethnography of Communication Ethnomethodology Evaluating Communication Theory Existentialism Expectancy Violations Theory Extended Parallel Process Model. See Campaign

Communication Theories; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

Face Negotiation Theory Facework Theories Family and Marital Schemas and Types Family Communication Theories Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies

ixList of Entries

Feedback. See Cybernetics Feminist Communication Theories Feminist Rhetorical Criticism Feminist Standpoint Theory Field Theory of Conflict Film Theories Flow and Contra-Flow Framing Theory Frankfurt School Free Flow Doctrine French Feminism Functional Group Communication Theory

Game Theory. See Conflict Communication Theories; Negotiation Theory

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories

Gender and Biology Gender and Media Genderlect Theory Gender Role Theory Gender Schema Theory General Semantics Genre Theory Globalization Theories Grounded Theory Group and Organizational Structuration Theory Group Communication Theories Groupthink

Haptics. See Nonverbal Communication Theories Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono Theory Health Communication Theories Hermeneutics Heuristic-Systematic Model Hierarchy of Effects Models. See Advertising

Theories Hindu Communication Theory Humanistic Perspective Humorous Communication Theory Hybridity

I and Thou Identification Identity Management Theory. See Identity

Theories Identity Negotiation Theory. See Identity

Theories Identity Theories Ideological Rhetoric Ideology Immediacy

Impression Formation Impression Management Indian Rasa Theory Information Processing. See Cognitive Theories Information Theory Informatization Inoculation Theory Inquiry Processes Institutional Theories of Organizational

Communication Integrated Threat Theory. See Conflict

Communication Theories Interaction Adaptation Theory Interaction Involvement Interaction Process Analysis Intercultural Communication Competence Intercultural Communication Theories International Communication Theories International Development Theories Interpersonal Communication Theories Interpersonal Deception Theory Interpersonal Power. See Power, Interpersonal Interpretive Communities Theory Interpretive Theory Interracial Communication Intersectionality Intrapersonal Communication Theories Invitational Rhetoric Issues Life-Cycle Theory. See Corporate

Campaign Theories

Japanese Kuuki Theory Journalism and Theories of the Press

Kinesics Knowledge Gap Theory. See Public Opinion

Theories

Language Acquisition and Development. See Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Language and Communication Latino Perspectives Leadership Theories Learning and Communication Legal Communication Theories Legitimation Gap Theory. See Corporate

Campaign Theories Linguistic Relativity

Marxist Theory Materiality of Discourse

x List of Entries

Mathematical Theory of Communication Meaning Theories Media and Mass Communication Theories Media Democracy Media Diplomacy Media Ecology. See Medium Theory Media Effects Theories Media Equation Theory Media Ethics Theories Media Richness Theory Media Sovereignty Medium Theory Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) Metacommunication Metaphor Metatheory Models of Communication. See Constitutive

View of Communication Modernism in Communication Theory Montreal School. See Constitutive View of

Communication; Organizational Co-Orientation Theory

Moral Conflict. See Conflict Communication Theories

Motivated Information Management Theory Multiple Intelligences. See Learning and

Communication Muted Group Theory Myth and Mythic Criticism

Narrative and Narratology Narrative Transparency Model. See International

Communication Theories Negotiation Theory Neocolonialism Network Society Network Theory. See Actor–Network Theory;

Organizational Communication Theories New Media Theory New Rhetoric. See Argumentation Theories New World Information and Communication

Order (NWICO) Nonverbal Communication Theories

Oculesics. See Nonverbal Communication Theories

Ontology Ordinary Democracy Organizational Communication Theories Organizational Control Theory

Organizational Co-Orientation Theory Organizational Culture Organizational Identity Theory Organizational List Theory Organizational Socialization and Assimilation Organizing, Process of

Palo Alto Group Paralanguage Path-Goal Theory. See Leadership Theories Peace Theories Performance Ethnography Performance Theories Performative Writing Persuasion and Social Influence Theories Phenomenology Philosophy of Communication Planned Behavior, Theory of. See Campaign

Communication Theories; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Reasoned Action Theory

Planning Theory. See Cognitive Theories; Communication Goal Theories

Politeness Theory Political Communication Theories Popular Culture Theories Positioning Theory Positivism. See Postpositivism Postcolonial Feminism Postcolonial Theory Postmodern Theory Postpositivism Poststructuralism Power, Interpersonal Power and Power Relations Practical Theory Pragma-Dialectics. See Argumentation

Theories Pragmatics Presence Theory Privacy Management Theory Privilege Problematic Integration Theory Process of Communication Propaganda Theory Proxemics Public Opinion Theories Public Sphere

Queer Theory

xiList of Entries

Racial Formation Theory Realism and the Received View Reasoned Action Theory Reception Theories. See Audience Theories;

International Communication Theories; Interpretive Communities Theory; Sense-Making

Relational Communication Theory Relational Control Theory Relational Development Relational Dialectics Relational Framing Theory. See Cognitive

Theories Relational Maintenance Theories Relational Order Theory. See Conflict

Communication Theories Relational Turbulence Model. See Uncertainty

Management Theories Relational Uncertainty Religious Communication Theories Renaissance Rhetorical Theory. See Rhetorical

Theory Reversal Theory. See Advertising Theories Rhetorical Sensitivity Rhetorical Theory Rogerian Dialogue Theory Rules Theories

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. See Linguistic Relativity Scientific Approach Self. See Humanistic Perspective; Identity

Theories; Rogerian Dialogue Theory; Symbolic Interactionism

Self-Categorization Theory Self-Disclosure Semiotics and Semiology Sense-Making Sign. See Meaning Theories; Semiotics and

Semiology Silence, Silences, and Silencing Simulation and Media Skill, Communication. See Competence Theories;

Communication Skills Theories; Intercultural Communication Competence; Cognitive Theories

Social Action Media Studies Social and Communicative Anxiety Social Construction of Reality Social Exchange Theory Social Identity Theory

Social Information Processing Theory Social Interaction Theories Social Judgment Theory Social Justice Social Learning Theory. See Entertainment–

Education; Learning and Communication Social Penetration Theory Social Support Spectatorship Speech Accommodation Theory. See

Accommodation Theory Speech Act Theory Speech Codes Theory Speech Theory of Human Communication. See

Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Spiral Models of Media Effects Spiral of Silence Stakeholder Theory Standpoint Theory. See Feminist Standpoint

Theory Stigma Communication Stories and Storytelling Structuralism. See Poststructuralism Structuration Theory Style, Communicator Subliminal Communication Symbol. See Meaning Theories; Semiotics and

Semiology Symbolic Convergence Theory Symbolic Interactionism Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective on Groups System Theory

Taoist Communication Theory Technology of Communication. See Computer-

Mediated Communication; New Media Theory

Theory Theory of Reasoned Action. See Reasoned

Action Theory Time. See Chronemics Traditions of Communication Theory Trait Theory Transactional View. See Constitutive View of

Communication Transculturation Translation Theory. See Actor–Network

Theory Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow

xii List of Entries

Uncertainty Management Theories Uncertainty Reduction Theory Unobtrusive Control. See Organizational Control

Theory Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Validity and Reliability Values Studies: History and Concepts Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and

Frameworks Variable Analytic Tradition Vernacular Discourse

Violence and Nonviolence in Media Studies Visual Communication Theories Vocalics. See Paralanguage

Whiteness Theory Whorfian Hypothesis. See Linguistic

Relativity Womanism

Yale Communication and Attitude Change Program. See Attitude Theory; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

xiii

Reader’s Guide

The Reader’s Guide is provided to assist readers in locating articles on related topics. It classifies entries into 17 general topical categories:

Applications and Contexts Critical Orientations Cultural Orientations Cybernetic and Systems Orientations Feminist Orientations Group and Organizational Concepts Information, Media, and Communication Technology International and Global Concepts Interpersonal Concepts Non-Western Orientations Paradigms, Traditions, and Schools Philosophical Orientations Psycho-Cognitive Orientations Rhetorical Orientations Semiotic, Linguistic, and Discursive Orientations Social-Interactional Orientations Theory, Metatheory, Methodology, and Inquiry

Entries may be listed under more than one topic.

Applications and Contexts

Advertising Theories Argumentation Theories Broadcasting Theories Campaign Communication Theories Communication Across the Life Span Communication in Later Life Communication Skills Theories Community Competence Theories Computer-Mediated Communication Conflict Communication Theories Corporate Campaign Theories Cultivation Theory Cultural Theories of Health Communication Deliberative Democratic Theories Entertainment–Education

Environmental Communication Theories Ethics Theories Family and Marital Schemas and Types Family Communication Theories Film Theories Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories Globalization Theories Group Communication Theories Groupthink Health Communication Theories Humorous Communication Theory Informatization Intercultural Communication Theories International Communication Theories International Development Theories Journalism and Theories of the Press Learning and Communication

xiv Reader’s Guide

Legal Communication Theories Media and Mass Communication Theories Medium Theory Negotiation Theory Ordinary Democracy Organizational Communication Theories Political Communication Theories Religious Communication Theories Visual Communication Theories

Critical Orientations

Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis Activity Theory Americanization of Media Archeology and Genealogy Autoethnography Black Feminist Epistemology Chicana Feminism Citizenship Co-Cultural Theory Complexity and Communication Critical Communication Pedagogy Critical Constructivism Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Ethnography Critical Organizational Communication Critical Race Theory Critical Rhetoric Critical Theory Cultural Studies Deconstruction Diaspora Digital Divide Discourse Theory and Analysis Existentialism Feminist Communication Theories Feminist Rhetorical Criticism Feminist Standpoint Theory Flow and Contra-Flow Frankfurt School French Feminism Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories Gender and Media Genderlect Theory Hermeneutics Hybridity Identity Theories Ideological Rhetoric Ideology

Interracial Communication Intersectionality Marxist Theory Materiality of Discourse Media Sovereignty Medium Theory Muted Group Theory Neocolonialism New Media Theory Positioning Theory Postcolonial Feminism Postcolonial Theory Postmodern Theory Poststructuralism Power and Power Relations Privilege Propaganda Theory Public Sphere Queer Theory Racial Formation Theory Silence, Silences, and Silencing Social Justice Spectatorship Structuration Theory Transculturation Vernacular Discourse Whiteness Theory Womanism

Cultural Orientations

Afrocentricity Asian Communication Theory Black Feminist Epistemology Buddhist Communication Theory Chicana Feminism Chinese Harmony Theory Chronemics Co-Cultural Theory Community Community of Practice Confucian Communication Theory Contextual Theory of Interethnic

Communication Critical Ethnography Critical Race Theory Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory Cultivation Theory Cultural Contracts Theory Cultural Performance Theory

xvReader’s Guide

Cultural Studies Cultural Theories of Health Communication Cultural Types Theories Culture and Communication Diaspora Effective Intercultural Workgroup

Communication Theory Ethnography of Communication Ethnomethodology Face Negotiation Theory Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies Feminist Standpoint Theory Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories Genderlect Theory Gender Role Theory Hindu Communication Theory Hybridity Identity Theories Indian Rasa Theory Informatization Intercultural Communication Competence Intercultural Communication Theories Interpretive Theory Interracial Communication Intersectionality Japanese Kuuki Theory Latino Perspectives Linguistic Relativity Medium Theory Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) Myth and Mythic Criticism Neocolonialism Organizational Culture Performance Ethnography Performance Theories Popular Culture Theories Postcolonial Theory Privilege Proxemics Racial Formation Theory Religious Communication Theories Silence, Silences, and Silencing Social Identity Theory Social Justice Speech Codes Theory Taoist Communication Theory Transculturation Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and

Frameworks Vernacular Discourse

Whiteness Theory Womanism

Cybernetic and Systems Orientations

Actor–Network Theory Autoethnography Complexity and Communication Convergence Theory Coordinated Management of Meaning Co-Orientation Theory Cybernetics Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group

Cognition and Social Influence Functional Group

Communication Theory Information Theory Mathematical Theory of

Communication Metacommunication Organizational Co-Orientation Theory Organizing, Process of Palo Alto Group Pragmatics Relational Control Theory Relational Dialectics Stakeholder Theory Structuration Theory System Theory

Feminist Orientations

Black Feminist Epistemology Chicana Feminism Feminist Communication Theories Feminist Rhetorical Criticism Feminist Standpoint Theory French Feminism Gender and Media Genderlect Theory Gender Role Theory Gender Schema Theory Intersectionality Invitational Rhetoric Muted Group Theory Postcolonial Feminism Power and Power Relations Queer Theory Womanism

xvi Reader’s Guide

Group and Organizational Concepts

Actor–Network Theory Bona Fide Group Theory Campaign Communication Theories Collective Information Sampling Community Community of Practice Co-Orientation Theory Corporate Campaign Theories Creativity in Groups Critical Organizational Communication Cross-Cultural Decision Making Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group

Cognition and Social Influence Effective Intercultural Workgroup

Communication Theory Field Theory of Conflict Functional Group Communication Theory Group Communication Theories Groupthink Health Communication Theories Institutional Theories of Organizational

Communication Interaction Process Analysis Leadership Theories Media Richness Theory Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) Organizational Communication Theories Organizational Control Theory Organizational Co-Orientation Theory Organizational Culture Organizational Identity Theory Organizational Socialization and Assimilation Organizing, Process of Sense-Making Social Identity Theory Stakeholder Theory Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective on Groups

Information, Media, and Communication Technology

Activation Theory of Information Exposure Advertising Theories Affect-Dependent Theory of Stimulus

Arrangements Agenda-Setting Theory Americanization of Media Audience Theories Broadcasting Theories

Campaign Communication Theories Communication in Later Life Computer-Mediated Communication Corporate Campaign Theories Critical Theory Cultivation Theory Cultural Studies Diaspora Diffusion of Innovations Digital Divide Discourse Theory and Analysis Documentary Film Theories Entertainment–Education Environmental Communication Theories Expectancy Violations Theory Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies Film Theories Flow and Contra-Flow Framing Theory Frankfurt School Gender and Media Globalization Theories Health Communication Theories Information Theory Informatization International Development Theories Interpretive Communities Theory Journalism and Theories of the Press Marxist Theory Materiality of Discourse Media and Mass Communication Theories Media Democracy Media Diplomacy Media Effects Theories Media Equation Theory Media Ethics Theories Media Richness Theory Media Sovereignty Medium Theory Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) Motivated Information Management Theory Neocolonialism Network Society New Media Theory New World Information and Communication

Order (NWICO) Political Communication Theories Popular Culture Theories Postcolonial Theory Presence Theory

xviiReader’s Guide

Propaganda Theory Public Opinion Theories Public Sphere Social Action Media Studies Social Identity Theory Social Information Processing Theory Spectatorship Spiral Models of Media Effects Spiral of Silence Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency Violence and Nonviolence

in Media

International and Global Concepts

Culture and Communication Diaspora Flow and Contra-Flow Free Flow Doctrine Globalization Theories Intercultural Communication Theories International Development Theories Media Diplomacy Media Sovereignty Neocolonialism New World Information and Communication

Order (NWICO) Peace Theories Postcolonial Theory

Interpersonal Concepts

Accommodation Theory Accounts and Account Giving Action Assembly Theory Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis Agency Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal

Aggressiveness Theory Attachment Theory Attribution Theory Chronemics Cognitive Dissonance Theory Collective Information Sampling Communibiology Communication Goal Theories Communication in Later Life Communication Skills Theories

Communication Theory of Identity Competence Theories Compliance Gaining Strategies Conflict Communication Theories Constructivism Conversational Constraints Theory Conversation Analysis Coordinated Management of Meaning Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory Cultural Contracts Theory Deception Detection Dialogue Theories Diffusion of Innovations Discourse Theory and Analysis Dyadic Power Theory Elaboration Likelihood Theory Emotion and Communication Empathy Ethnomethodology Expectancy Violations Theory Face Negotiation Theory Facework Theories Family and Marital Schemas and Types Family Communication Theories Field Theory of Conflict Genderlect Theory General Semantics Grounded Theory Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono Theory Health Communication Theories Heuristic-Systematic Model I and Thou Immediacy Impression Formation Impression Management Inoculation Theory Interaction Adaptation Theory Interaction Involvement Intercultural Communication Competence Interpersonal Communication Theories Interpersonal Deception Theory Invitational Rhetoric Kinesics Learning and Communication Metacommunication Motivated Information Management Theory Negotiation Theory Nonverbal Communication Theories Palo Alto Group Paralanguage

xviii Reader’s Guide

Persuasion and Social Influence Theories Politeness Theory Power, Interpersonal Privacy Management Theory Problematic Integration Theory Proxemics Reasoned Action Theory Relational Control Theory Relational Development Relational Dialectics Relational Maintenance Theory Rhetorical Sensitivity Rogerian Dialogue Theory Rules Theories Self-Categorization Theory Self-Disclosure Sense-Making Social and Communicative Anxiety Social Construction of Reality Social Exchange Theory Social Information Processing Theory Social Interaction Theories Social Judgment Theory Social Penetration Theory Social Support Speech Act Theory Stigma Communication Stories and Storytelling Style, Communicator Symbolic Convergence Theory Symbolic Interactionism Trait Theory Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow Uncertainty Management Theories Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Non-Western Orientations

Afrocentricity Asian Communication Theory Confucian Communication Theory Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono Theory Hindu Communication Theory Indian Rasa Theory Informatization Japanese Kuuki Theory Taoist Communication Theory

Paradigms, Traditions, and Schools

Afrocentricity Asian Communication Theory Buddhist Communication Theory Cognitive Theories Communibiology Communication Skills Theories Constitutive View of Communication Critical Theory Empiricism Feminist Communication Theories Humanistic Perspective Modernism in Communication Theory Philosophy of Communication Postmodern Theory Postpositivism Poststructuralism Pragmatics Rules Theories Scientific Approach Social Interaction Theories System Theory Traditions of Communication Theory Variable Analytic Tradition

Philosophical Orientations

Axiology Epistemology Ethics Theories Existentialism Meaning Theories Metatheory Ontology Phenomenology Philosophy of Communication Pragmatics Realism and the Received View Values Studies: History and Concepts

Psycho-Cognitive Orientations

Accommodation Theory Action Assembly Theory Activation Theory of Information Exposure Activity Theory

xixReader’s Guide

Affect-Dependent Theory of Stimulus Arrangements

Agency Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal

Aggressiveness Theory Attachment Theory Attitude Theory Attribution Theory Audience Theories Chronemics Cognitive Dissonance Theory Cognitive Theories Communibiology Communication Across the Life Span Communication and Language Acquisition and

Development Communication in Later Life Competence Theories Compliance Gaining Strategies Constructivism Co-Orientation Theory Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory Cultivation Theory Diffusion of Innovations Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group

Cognition and Social Influence Dyadic Power Theory Elaboration Likelihood Theory Emotion and Communication Empathy Expectancy Violations Theory Face Negotiation Theory Family and Marital Schemas and Types Field Theory of Conflict Gender and Biology Gender Schema Theory General Semantics Heuristic-Systematic Model Humorous Communication Theory Immediacy Impression Formation Inoculation Theory Interaction Adaptation Theory Interaction Involvement Interaction Process Analysis Intercultural Communication Competence

Interpersonal Deception Theory Intrapersonal Communication Theories Leadership Theories Learning and Communication Linguistic Relativity Meaning Theories Media Effects Theories Motivated Information Management Theory Negotiation Theory Nonverbal Communication Theories Persuasion and Social Influence Theories Politeness Theory Power, Interpersonal Privacy Management Theory Problematic Integration Theory Public Opinion Theories Reasoned Action Theory Religious Communication Theories Rhetorical Sensitivity Self-Categorization Theory Self-Disclosure Sense-Making Social and Communicative Anxiety Social Exchange Theory Social Information Processing Theory Social Judgment Theory Social Penetration Theory Spiral of Silence Style, Communicator Trait Theory Uncertainty Management Theories Uncertainty Reduction Theory Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency Values Studies: History and Concepts

Rhetorical Orientations

Agency Argumentation Theories Classical Rhetorical Theory Critical Rhetoric Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Genre Theory Hermeneutics Identification Ideological Rhetoric Invitational Rhetoric

xx Reader’s Guide

Metaphor Myth and Mythic Criticism Narrative and Narratology Organizational Control Theory Political Communication Theories Religious Communication Theories Rhetorical Sensitivity Symbolic Convergence Theory Visual Communication Theories

Semiotic, Linguistic, and Discursive Orientations

Accounts and Account Giving Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis Activity Theory Actor–Network Theory Archeology and Genealogy Argumentation Theories Autoethnography Chronemics Classical Rhetorical Theory Constitutive View of Communication Conversational Constraints Theory Conversation Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis Cultural Studies Deconstruction Ethnomethodology Feminist Rhetorical Criticism Genderlect Theory General Semantics Genre Theory Hermeneutics Identification Ideological Rhetoric Interpretive Theory Intrapersonal Communication Theories Kinesics Language and Communication Linguistic Relativity Materiality of Discourse Meaning Theories Metacommunication Metaphor Narrative and Narratology Neocolonialism

Nonverbal Communication Theories Paralanguage Politeness Theory Popular Culture Theories Positioning Theory Poststructuralism Proxemics Semiotics and Semiology Silence, Silences, and Silencing Speech Act Theory Speech Codes Theory Stories and Storytelling Symbolic Convergence Theory Symbolic Interactionism Visual Communication Theories

Social-Interactional Orientations

Accounts and Account Giving Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis Activity Theory Actor–Network Theory Agency Agenda-Setting Theory Audience Theories Autoethnography Bona Fide Group Theory Communication and Language Acquisition and

Development Communication Theory of Identity Community Community of Practice Consequentiality of Communication Constitutive View of Communication Conversational Constraints Theory Conversation Analysis Coordinated Management of Meaning Co-Orientation Theory Cultural Performance Theory Dialogue Theories Diffusion of Innovations Discourse Theory and Analysis Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Ethnomethodology Facework Theories Framing Theory Functional Group Communication Theory

xxiReader’s Guide

Gender Role Theory Grounded Theory Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono Theory I and Thou Identification Identity Theories Immediacy Impression Management Interpersonal Deception Theory Interpretive Communities Theory Intrapersonal Communication Theories Invitational Rhetoric Leadership Theories Meaning Theories Membership Categorization

Analysis (MCA) Negotiation Theory Nonverbal Communication Theories Organizational Control Theory Organizational Co-Orientation Theory Organizational Culture Organizing, Process of Palo Alto Group Performance Theories Politeness Theory Positioning Theory Postmodern Theory Poststructuralism Privacy Management Theory Privilege Proxemics Relational Control Theory Relational Development Theories Relational Dialectics Relational Maintenance Rogerian Dialogue Theory Rules Theories Social Action Media Studies Social Construction of Reality Social Identity Theory Social Interaction Theories Social Penetration Theory Speech Act Theory Spiral of Silence Stories and Storytelling

Structuration Theory Symbolic Convergence Theory Symbolic Interactionism Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective on Groups Values Studies: History and Concepts Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and

Frameworks

Theory, Metatheory, Methodology, and Inquiry

Autoethnography Conversation Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Ethnography Definitions of Communication Discourse Theory and Analysis Epistemology Ethics Theories Ethnography of Communication Ethnomethodology Evaluating Communication Theory Feminist Rhetorical Criticism Genre Theory Grounded Theory Hermeneutics Humanistic Perspective Inquiry Processes Interpretive Theory Metatheory Modernism in Communication Theory Myth and Mythic Criticism Ontology Performative Writing Phenomenology Philosophy of Communication Postpositivism Practical Theory Realism and the Received View Scientific Approach Stories and Storytelling Theory Traditions of Communication Theory Validity and Reliability Variable Analytic Tradition

xxiii

Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Aakhus, Mark Practical Theory

Abelson, Robert Cognitive Theories

Abhinavagupta Indian Rasa Theory

Adorno, Theodor

Broadcasting Theories Critical Theory Frankfurt School Modernism in Communication

Theory Popular Culture Theories Power and Power Relations

Affifi, Walid Motivated Information Management Theory

Uncertainty Management Theories

Ajzen, Icek Campaign Communication Theories Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Reasoned Action Theory

Allport, Gordon Public Opinion Theories Values Studies: History and Concepts

Althusser, Louis Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Theory Cultural Studies Gender and Media Ideology Poststructuralism

Altman, Irwin Interpersonal Communication Theories

Relational Communication Theory Relational Development Self-Disclosure

Andersen, Peter A. Immediacy

Theorists Entry Titles

Anderson, James Social Action Media Studies

Angell, Norman International Communication Theories

Anzaldúa, Gloria Chicana Feminism Latino Perspectives

Appadurai, Arjun

Diaspora Globalization Theories

Ardener, Shirley Muted Group Theory

Arendt, Hannah Power and Power Relations Public Sphere

Argyle, Michael Communication Skills Theories

Aristotle Classical Rhetorical Theory Community Epistemology Ethics Theories Legal Communication Theories Media Ethics Theories Narrative and Narratology Ontology Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Rhetorical Theory Traditions of Communication Theory Values Studies: History and Concepts

Arnheim, Rudolph

Film Theories

Arundale, Robert

Facework Theories

Asante, Molefi Kete

Afrocentricity Interracial Communication

(Continued)

xxiv Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Barthes, Roland Meaning Theories Popular Culture Theories Poststructuralism Semiotics and Semiology Visual Communication Theories

Bateson, Gregory

Constructivism Cybernetics Palo Alto Group Pragmatics Relational Communication Theory Relational Control Theory Social Interaction Theories System Theory Traditions of Communication Theory

Baudrillard, Jean Media Ethics Theories Popular Culture Theories Postmodern Theory Poststructuralism Simulation and Media

Baudry, Jean-Louis

Spectatorship

Bauman, Zygmunt

Ethics Theories

Baxter, Leslie A. Family Communication Theories Interpersonal Communication

Theories Relational Communication Theory Relational Dialectics Relational Uncertainty

Baym, Nancy Computer-Mediated Communication

Bazin, André Film Theories

Beatty, Michael J.

Communibiology Trait Theories

Beck, Ulrich Globalization Theories

Bell, Derrick Critical Race Theory

Bell, Elizabeth Feminist Communication Theories

Bem, Daryl Attitude Theory Attribution Theory Compliance Gaining Strategies Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

Theorists Entry Titles

Ashby, Ross Cybernetics

Aune, Kelly Deception Detection

Austin, John Ethnomethodology Language and Communication Performance Ethnography Performance Theories Pragmatics Rules Theories Speech Act Theory

Babrow, Austin S.

Motivated Information Management Theory

Problematic Integration Theory Uncertainty Management Theories

Baier, Annette Ethics Theories

Bakardjieva, Maria

Critical Constructivism

Bakhtin, Mikhail Cultural Performance Theory Dialogue Theories Narrative and Narratology Performance Ethnography Performance Theories Relational Communication Theory Relational Dialectics Stories and Storytelling

Bales, Robert Group Communication Theories Interaction Process Analysis Symbolic Convergence Theory

Ball-Rokeach, Sandra

Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Bandura, Albert Campaign Communication Theories Communication Skills Theories Entertainment–Education Learning and Communication Media and Mass Communication

Theories

Barker, Valerie Communication in Later Life

Barry, Ann Marie

Visual Communication Theories

xxvTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Bem, Sandra Gender Schema Theory Power, Interpersonal Rules Theories

Benjamin, Walter

Critical Theory Frankfurt School

Bennett, Lance Legal Communication Theories

Bentham, Jeremy Ethics Theories

Berger, Charles Cognitive Theories Communication Goal Theories Intercultural Communication

Theories Interpersonal Communication

Theories Relational Uncertainty Uncertainty Management

Theories Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Berger, Peter Ethnomethodology Language and Communication Institutional Theories of

Organizational Communication Social Construction of Reality

Berlo, David Empathy Process of Communication

Bernstein, Basil Elaborated and Restricted Codes

Bertalanffy, Ludwig

System Theory

Bhabha, Homi K.

Hybridity Postcolonial Theory

Bharata Indian Rasa Theory

Bhartrhari Asian Communication Theory Hindu Communication Theory

Billig, Michael Discourse Theory and Analysis

Biocca, Frank Presence Theory

Birdsell, David Interpersonal Communication Theories

Legal Communication Theories Nonverbal Communication Theories

Theorists Entry Titles

Birdwhistell, Ray Kinesics Rules Theories Social Interaction Theories

Bitzer, Lloyd Rhetorical Theory

Blake, Robert Conflict Communication Theories

Blumer, Herbert Grounded Theory Interpersonal Communication

Theories Learning and Communication Symbolic Interactionism

Blumler, Jay Audience Theories Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Bohm, David Dialogue Theories

Borel, Marie-Jeanne

Constructivism

Bormann, Ernest G.

Group Communication Theories Symbolic Convergence Theory

Bosmajian, Haig Legal Communication Theories

Boulding, Elise Peace Theories

Boulding, Kenneth

Peace Theories

Bourdieu, Pierre Learning and Communication Popular Culture Theories

Bowlby, John Attachment Theory

Boyd-Barrett, Oliver

Flow and Contra-Flow

Brashers, Dale Motivated Information Management Theory

Uncertainty Management Theories

Brown, Penelope Accounts and Account Giving Compliance-Gaining Strategies Facework Theories Impression Management Interpersonal Communication

Theories Politeness Theory

(Continued)

xxvi Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Butler, Judith Feminist Communication Theories Queer Theory Performance Ethnography Performance Theories

Cacioppo, John Advertising Theories Elaboration Likelihood Theory Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Political Communication Theories

Calafell, Bernadette

Feminist Communication Theories Chicana Feminism

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs

Feminist Communication Theories Feminist Rhetorical Criticism Genre Theory

Campos, Milton Critical Constructivism

Canary, Daniel Conflict Communication Theories Relational Maintenance Theories

Cannon, Kenneth L.

Dyadic Power Theory

Caputo, Joseph Ethics Theories

Carey, James New Media Theory Power and Power Relations Social Construction of Reality

Cassirer, Ernst Linguistic Relativity

Castells, Manuel Globalization Theories International Communication

Theories Network Society

Cegala, Donald Interaction Involvement

Chaiken, Shelly Heuristic-Systematic Model Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

Chambers, Robert

International Development Theories

Chen, Guo-Ming Asian Communication Theory Chinese Harmony Theory Intercultural Communication

Competence

Theorists Entry Titles

Browning, Larry

Organizational List Theory

Buber, Martin Dialogue Theories Ethics Theories I and Thou Rogerian Dialogue Theory Stories and Storytelling Traditions of Communication Theory

Buddha Asian Communication Theory Buddhist Communication Theory Hindu Communication Theory Values Studies: History and Concepts

Buller, David Deception Detection Interpersonal Deception Theory

Burgoon, Judee K.

Cross-Cultural Communication Deception Detection Expectancy Violations Theory Interaction Adaptation Theory Interpersonal Communication

Theories Interpersonal Deception Theory Nonverbal Communication Theories Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

Burke, Kenneth Agency Chronemics Critical Organizational

Communication Critical Rhetoric Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Empathy Humorous Communication Theory Identification Metaphor Performance Theories Religious Communication Theories Symbolic Interactionism

Burks, Don Rhetorical Sensitivity

Burns, James McGregor

Leadership Theories

xxviiTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Cheney, George Critical Organizational Communication Organizational Control Theory Organizational Culture Organizational Identity Theory

Chomsky, Noam Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Consequentiality of Communication Critical Discourse Analysis Language and Communication Propaganda Theory Rules Theories

Christians, Clifford Media Ethics Theories

Cialdini, Robert Compliance Gaining Strategies

Cicero Classical Rhetorical Theory Legal Communication Theories Metaphor Rhetorical Theory

Cixous, Hèléne Feminist Communication Theories French Feminism

Cloud, Dana L. Ideology Materiality of Discourse

Cohen, Bernard Media Effects Theories

Collier, Mary Jane

Cultural Identity Theory Culture and Communication Identity Theories

Collins, Patricia Hill

Black Feminist Epistemology Womanism

Condit, Celeste Feminist Communication Theories

Coney, Russell Advertising Theories

Confucius Confucian Communication Theory Ethics Theories Taoist Communication Theory Values Studies: History and Concepts

Conquergood, Dwight

Critical Ethnography Cultural Performance Theory Performance Ethnography Performance Theories

Theorists Entry Titles

Cooley, Charles Interpretive Theory Learning and Communication Symbolic Interactionism Traditions of Communication Theory

Cooren, François Actor–Network Theory Constitutive View of Communication Organizational Communication

Theories

Craig, Robert T. Constitutive View of Communication Practical Theory

Crenshaw, Kimberlé

Critical Race Theory Intersectionality

Cronen, Vernon Coordinated Management of Meaning Interpersonal Communication Theories Practical Theory Rules Theories

Crystal, David Paralanguage

Cua, Antonio Asian Communication Theory

Cupach, William Communication Skills Theories Competence Theories Identity Theories

Daft, Richard Media Richness Theory

Dance, Frank E. X.

Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Darwin, Charles Cultural Types Theories Nonverbal Communication

Theories Realism and the Received View System Theory

Deetz, Stanley A. Corporate Colonization Theory Critical Organizational

Communication Organizational Communication

Theories

DeFleur, Marvin Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

De la Garza, Sarah Amira

Chicana Feminism Latino Perspectives

Deleuze, Gilles Film Theories

(Continued)

xxviii Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Donohue, William

Conflict Communication Theories

Dow, Bonnie Feminist Communication Theories

Duck, Steve Relational Development

Dunbar, Norah E.

Dyadic Power Theory

Duncan, Hugh Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Power and Power Relations

Duncan, Starky Silence, Silences, and Silencing

Dutta, Mohan J. Cultural Theories of Health Communication

Eagly, Alice Gender Role Theory

Edelman, Murray

Political Communication Theories

Edwards, Derek Discourse Theory and Analysis

Ekman, Paul Emotion and Communication Kinesics Nonverbal Communication Theories

Elkins, James Visual Communication Theories

Ellul, Jacques Media Ethics Theories

Engels, Frederick Marxist Theory

Fairclough, Norman

Critical Discourse Analysis Practical Theory

Fanon, Frantz Postcolonial Theory

Farrell, Thomas Rules Theories

Fassett, Deanna Critical Communication Pedagogy

Fazio, Russell Cognitive Theories

Feenberg, Andrew

Critical Constructivism

Festinger, Leon Attitude Theory Cognitive Dissonance Theory Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Traditions of Communication Theory

Fiedler, Fred Leadership Theories

Fish, Stanley Interpretive Communities Theory

Theorists Entry Titles

Delia, Jesse G. Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Constructivism Interpersonal Communication

Theories

Denzin, Norman Neocolonialism Performance Ethnography

Derrida, Jacques Deconstruction Performance Theories Poststructuralism

Dervin, Brenda Sense-Making

Descartes, René Agency Epistemology Modernism in Communication Theory Rhetorical Theory

Dewey, John Community Functional Group Communication

Theory Group Communication Theories Interpretive Theory Learning and Communication Public Opinion Theories

DiClemente, Carlo

Campaign Communication Theories

Dillard, James Price

Cognitive Theories Compliance Gaining Strategies Communication Goal Theories

Dilthey, Wilhelm Hermeneutics Interpretive Theory

DiMaggio, Paul Institutional Theories of Organizational Communication

Dissanayake, Wimal

Asian Communication Theory

Doane, Mary Ann

Spectatorship

Donohew, Lewis Activation Theory of Information Exposure

Donohue, George

Public Opinion Theories

xxixTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Fishbein, Martin Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

Reasoned Action Theory Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Fisher, Roger Negotiation Theory

Fisher, Walter Narrative and Narratology

Fiske, John Popular Culture Theories

Fitzpatrick, Mary Anne

Conflict Communication Theories Family and Marital Schemas and

Types Family Communication Theories Relational Communication Theory

Foerster, Heinz von

Cybernetics System Theory

Foss, Sonja K. Feminist Communication Theories

Foss, Sonja Feminist Communication Theories Invitational Rhetoric

Foucault, Michel Archeology and Genealogy Critical Constructivism Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Rhetoric Critical Theory Discourse Theory and Analysis Ethics Theories Ideology Materiality of Discourse Neocolonialism Popular Culture Theories Postmodern Theory Poststructuralism Practical Theory Queer Theory Rhetorical Theory

Freire, Paulo Critical Communication Pedagogy Dialogue Theories Learning and Communication

French, John R. P.

Compliance Gaining Strategies Dyadic Power Theory Power, Interpersonal

Theorists Entry Titles

Frentz, Thomas Myth and Mythic Criticism Rules Theories

Freud, Sigmund Agency Critical Theory Humorous Communication Theory Spectatorship

Friesen, Wallace Kinesics Nonverbal Communication Theories

Gadamer, Hans Georg.

Dialogue Theories Ethnomethodology Hermeneutics Interpretive Theory Modernism Stories and Storytelling Traditions of Communication

Theory

Galtung, Johan Peace Theories

Gardner, Howard

Learning and Communication

Garfinkel, Herbert

Conversation Analysis Ethnomethodology Rules Theories

Gearhart, Sally Miller

Feminist Communication Theories Invitational Rhetoric

Geertz, Clifford Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Intercultural Communication Theories Interpretive Theory Organizational Culture Stories and Storytelling

Gerbner, George Broadcasting Theories Cultivation Theory Cultural Indicators Gender and Media Media Effects Theories Violence and Nonviolence in Media

Studies

Ghandi, Mohandas

Violence and Nonviolence in Media Studies

(Continued)

xxx Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Gottman, John Conflict Communication Theories Family and Marital Schemas and

Types

Gouran, Dennis Functional Group Communication Theory

Group Communication Theories

Gramsci, Antonio

Critical Discourse Analysis Cultural Studies Gender and Media Ideology Popular Culture Theories Power and Power Relations

Greene, John O. Action Assembly Theory Interpersonal Communication

Theories

Grice, Paul Deception Detection Language and Communication Pragmatics Rules Theories

Griffin, Cindy L. Feminist Communication Theories Invitational Rhetoric

Grint, Keith Leadership Theories

Grize, Jean- Blaise

Constructivism

Grootendorst, Rian

Argumentation Theories

Grossberg, Lawrence

Cultural Studies Popular Culture Theories

Gudykunst, William B.

Cross-Cultural Communication

Gullion, Dead Edmund

Media Diplomacy

Gunaratne, Shelton A.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

Culture and Communication Intercultural Communication

Theories

Gurevitch, Michael

Audience Theories Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Theorists Entry Titles

Giddens, Anthony

Globalization Theories Group and Organizational

Structuration Theory Group Communication Theories Organizational Communication

Theories Power and Power Relations Practical Theory Rules Theories Structuration Theory

Gilbert, Nigel Discourse Theory and Analysis

Giles, Howard Accommodation Theory Communication in Later Life Cross-Cultural Communication Intercultural Communication

Theories Interpersonal Communication

Theories

Gilligan, Carol Ethics Theories

Gitlin, Todd Americanization of Media

Glaser, Bernie Grounded Theory

Glasersfeld, Ernst von

Constructivism Cybernetics

Goffman, Erving Agency Conversation Analysis Cultural Performance Theory Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad Facework Theories Framing Theory Impression Management Interaction Involvement Interpersonal Communication Theories Performance Ethnography Performance Theories Politeness Theory Rules Theories Social Interaction Theories Stigma Communication Symbolic Interactionism

Golombisky, Kim

Feminist Communication Theories

Goodnight, Thomas

Argumentation Theories

xxxiTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Habermas, Jürgen

Asian Communication Theory Communicative Action Theory Competence Theories Corporate Colonization Theory Critical Constructivism Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Organizational

Communication Critical Theory Culture and Communication Deliberative Democratic Theories Ethics Theories Frankfurt School Globalization Theories Hermeneutics Media Ethics Theories Medium Theory Metatheory Modernism in Communication

Theory Political Communication Theories Power and Power Relations Public Opinion Theories Public Sphere Rhetorical Theory Social Interaction Theories Traditions of Communication Theory

Hall, Edward T. Chronemics Cultural Types Theories Culture and Communication Intercultural Communication

Theories Interpersonal Communication

Theories Nonverbal Communication Theories Popular Culture Theories Proxemics Rules Theories Values Theory: Sociocultural

Dimensions and Frameworks

Theorists Entry Titles

Hall, Stuart Audience Theories Broadcasting Theories Critical Discourse Analysis Cultural Studies Culture and Communication Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies Language and Communication Power and Power Relations Visual Communication Theories

Halliday, Michael A. K.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Hamelink, Cees International Communication Theories

Harraway, Donna

Feminist Standpoint Theory

Harré, Rom Positioning Theory

Harris, Tina M. Interracial Communication

Harris, Zelig Discourse Theory and Analysis

Hart, Roderick Theory Rhetorical Sensitivity

Harwood, Jake Communication in Later Life

Hasain, Marouf Legal Communication Theories

Hebdidge, Dick Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies

Hecht, Michael Communication Theory of Identity Cultural Identity Theory Identity Theories Interracial Communication

Hegde, Radha Feminist Communication Theories Postcolonial Feminism Postcolonial Theory

Hegel, Georg System Theory

Heidegger, Martin

Critical Theory Hermeneutics Phenomenology Traditions of Communication Theory

(Continued)

xxxii Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Hovland, Carl Attitude Theory Learning and Communication Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Public Opinion Theories Scientific Approach Traditions of Communication Theory

Humboldt, Wilhelm von

Hermeneutics

Hummert, Mary Lee

Communication in Later Life

Husserl, Edmund

Ethnomethodology Hermeneutics Interpretive Theory Phenomenology Traditions of Communication Theory

Hymes, Dell Community Consequentiality of Communication Culture and Communication Ethnography of Communication Rules Theories Social Interaction Theories Speech Codes Theory

Imahori, Tadasu Todd

Identity Theory

Infante, Dominic A.

Trait Theories Argumentativeness, Assertiveness,

and Verbal Aggressiveness

Ingelhart, Ronald

Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and Frameworks

Innis, Harold Adams

Chronemics International Communication

Theories Medium Theory

Irigaray, Luce Feminist Communication Theories French Feminism

Ishii, Satoshi Asian Communication Theory

Isocrates Classical Rhetorical Theory

Jablin, Fredric Organizational Socialization and Assimilation

Theorists Entry Titles

Heider, Fritz Attitude Theory Interpersonal Communication

Theories Interpretive Theory Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

Held, David Globalization Theories

Herbeck, Dale Legal Communication Theories

Hewes, Dean E. Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group Cognition and Social Influence

Hirokawa, Randy Y.

Functional Group Communication Theory

Group Communication Theories

Hobbes, Thomas Ethics Theories Humorous Communication Theory

Hofstede, Geert Cross-Cultural Communication Cultural Types Theories Culture and Communication Intercultural Communication

Theories Values Studies: History and Concepts Values Theory: Sociocultural

Dimensions and Frameworks

Hoggart, Richard

Cultural Studies Popular Culture Theories

Holling, Michelle

Feminist Communication Theories

Horkheimer, Max

Critical Theory Frankfurt School Modernism in Communication Theory Popular Culture Theories Power and Power Relations

House, Robert Leadership Theories

Houston, Marsha

Feminist Communication Theories Genderlect Theory Interracial Communication Womanism

xxxiiiTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Jackson, Ronald L., II

Cultural Contracts Theory Identity Theories Interracial Communication

Jackson, Sally Language and Communication Practical Theory

Jacobs, Scott Language and Communication

James, William Interpretive Theory

Jakobson, Roman

Poststructuralism Pragmatics

Jamieson, Kathleen

Feminist Communication Theories Genre Theory

Janis, Irving Functional Group Communication Theory

Group Communication Theories Groupthink

Jefferson, Gail Conversation Analysis Language and Communication

Jenkins, Henry Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies New Media Theory

Jenkins, Steven Ideological Rhetoric

Jensen, Klaus Bruhn

Interpretive Communities Theory

Johannesen, Richard

Dialogue Theories

Jones, Edward Impression Management

Jourard, Sydney Self-Disclosure

Jung, Carl Myth and Mythic Criticism

Kahneman, Daniel

Cognitive Theories

Kant, Immanuel Agency Ethics Theories Media Ethics Theories Modernism in Communication

Theory

Karatani, Kojin Popular Culture Theories

Katz, Daniel Attitude Theory

Theorists Entry Titles

Katz, Elihu Audience Theories Media Effects Theories Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Keane, John Media Democracy

Kelley, Harold Attribution Theory Interpersonal Communication

Theories

Kelly, George Constructivism

Kelman, Herbert Attitude Theory

Key, Valdimer O. Public Opinion Theories

Kilmann, Ralph Conflict Communication Theories

Kim, Min-Sun Conversational Constraints Theory

Kim, Young Yun Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication

Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory Cross-Cultural Communication Identity Theories

Kincaid, D. Lawrence

Convergence Theory

Kintsch, Walter Cognitive Theories

Klapper, Joseph Media Effects Theories Spiral Models of Media Effects

Klein, Gary Sense-Making

Kluckhohn, Clyde

Values Studies: History and Concepts Values Theory: Sociocultural

Dimensions and Frameworks

Knapp, Mark Interpersonal Communication Theories

Relational Communication Theory Relational Development

Knobloch, Leanne K.

Relational Uncertainty

Koerner, Ascan F.

Conflict Communication Theories Family and Marital Schemas and

Types Family Communication Theories Relational Communication Theory

(Continued)

xxxiv Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Lasswell, Harold Broadcasting Theories Journalism and Theories of the Press Public Opinion Theories

Latour, Bruno Actor–Network Theory

Lauretis, Terese de

Queer Theory Spectatorship

Lave, Jean Community

Lazarsfeld, Paul Audience Theories Broadcasting Theories Journalism and Theories of the Press Media and Mass Communication

Theories Media Effects Theories Political Communication Theories Public Opinion Theories Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow

Lederach, John Paul

Peace Theories

Lee, Kwan Min Presence Theory

Lee, Wenshu Queer Theory

Lengel, Robert Media Richness Theory

Leontiev, A. N. Activity Theory

Lerner, Daniel Globalization Theories International Communication Theories

Levinas, Emmanual

Ethics Theories Traditions of Communication Theory

Levinson, Stephen

Accounts and Account Giving Compliance Gaining Strategies Facework Theories Impression Management Interpersonal Communication

Theories Politeness Theory

Lévi-Strauss, Claude

Film Theories Popular Culture Theories

Lewin, Kurt Communication Skills Theories Field Theory of Conflict Group Communication Theories

Lewis, St. Elmo Advertising Theories

Theorists Entry Titles

Kolb, Deborah Negotiation Theory

Korzybski, Alfred

General Semantics

Kraidy, Marwan Flow and Contra-Flow Hybridity Transculturation

Kracauer, Siegfried

Film Theories

Kramarae, Cheris

Feminist Communication Theories Genderlect Theory

Krippendorff, Klaus

Constructivism Cybernetics

Kristeva, Julia Feminist Communication Theories French Feminism Semiotics and Semiology

Krizek, Robert Feminist Communication Theories Identity Theories Whiteness Theory

Krugman, Herbert

Advertising Theories

Kuhn, Thomas Theory

Lacan, Jacques Critical Theory Film Theories Popular Culture Theories Poststructuralism Spectatorship

Lake, Randall Myth and Mythic Criticism

Lakoff, George Metaphor

Lakoff, Robin Feminist Communication Theories Genderlect Theory Rules Theories

Lang, Annie Cognitive Theories

Langellier, Kristin

Performance Theories

Lanigan, Richard

Phenomenology

Laozi (Lao-Tzu) Asian Communication Theory Taoist Communication Theory Values Studies: History and Concepts

xxxvTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Lindlof, Thomas R.

Interpretive Communities Theory

Lippmann, Walter

Corporate Campaign Theories Framing Theory Learning and Communication Public Opinion Theories

Littlejohn, Stephen W.

Conflict Communication Theories

Lombard, Matthew

Presence Theory

Luckmann, Thomas

Ethnomethodology Language and

Communication Social Construction of Reality

Luhmann, Niklas

Cybernetics

Lull, James Social Action Media Studies

Lundsford, Andrea

Feminist Communication Theories

Lyman, Stanford Accounts and Account Giving

Lyotard, Francois

Narrative and Narratology Popular Culture Theories Poststructuralism

Madison, Soyini Performance Ethnography Performance Theories

Manalansan, Martin

Queer Theory

Marcuse, Herbert

Broadcasting Theories Critical Constructivism Critical Theory Frankfurt School Popular Culture

Theories Power and Power Relations

Marshall, T. H. Citizenship

Martin, Judith Identity Theories

Martinez, Jacqueline

Latino Perspectives

Theorists Entry Titles

Marwell, Gerald Compliance Gaining Strategies

Marx, Karl Agency Critical Discourse Analysis Frankfurt School Ideology Marxist Theory Power and Power Relations System Theory Traditions of Communication Theory

Maslow, Abraham

Humanistic Perspective

Matson, Floyd Dialogue Theories

Mattelart, Armand

International Communication Theories

Maturana, Humberto

Constructivism Cybernetics

McCombs, Maxwell

Agenda-Setting Theory Broadcasting Theories Framing Theory Media Effects Theories Political Communication Theories Public Opinion Theories

McCornack, Steven

Deception Detection

McCroskey, James C.

Communibiology Social and Communicative Anxiety Trait Theory

McGee, Michael Critical Rhetoric Critical Theory Ideological Rhetoric Myth and Mythic Criticism

McGrew, Anthony

Globalization Theories

McGuire, William

Attitude Theory Inoculation Theory Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

McIntosh, Peggy Privilege

(Continued)

xxxvi Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

McKerrow, Raymie E.

Critical Rhetoric Critical Theory

McKersie, Robert

Negotiation Theory

McLuhan, Marshall

Broadcasting Theories Globalization Theories International Communication

Theories Meaning Theories Medium Theory New Media Theory

McPhail, Mark Lawrence

Complicity Theory

McPhee, Robert D.

Constitutive View of Communication Group and Organizational

Structuration Theory Group Communication Theories

Mead, George Herbert

Community Empathy Interpersonal Communication

Theories Interpretive Theory Learning and Communication Meaning Theories Modernism in Communication

Theory Political Communication Theories Symbolic Interactionism Traditions of Communication

Theory

Mead, Margaret Cultural Types Theories Gender Role Theory Values Studies: History and Concepts

Mehrabian, Albert

Immediacy Nonverbal Communication Theories Paralanguage

Mencius Taoist Communication Theory

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice

Phenomenology

Metz, Christian Film Theories Spectatorship

Theorists Entry Titles

Meyrowitz, Joshua

Medium Theory

Miéville, Denis Constructivism

Miike, Yoshitaka

Asian Communication Theory Interracial Communication

Mill, John Stuart Ethics Theories Public Opinion Theories

Miller, Courtney Waite

Conflict Communication Theories

Minha, Trinh T. Postcolonial Feminism

Mitchell, W. J. T.

Visual Communication Theories

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade

Postcolonial Feminism

Monge, Peter System Theory

Montagu, Ashley Dialogue Theories

Montgomery, Barbara

Relational Communication Theory Relational Dialectics

Montville, Joseph Peace Theories

Morris, Charles Language and Communication Pragmatics Values Studies: History and Concepts

Mouffe, Chantal Ethics Theories

Mouton, Jane Conflict Communication Theories

Mulkay, Michael Discourse Theory and Analysis

Mulvey, Laura Feminist Communication Theories

Popular Culture Theories Spectatorship

Mumby, Dennis Critical Organizational Communication

Ideology

Nagarjuna Asian Communication Theory

Nakayama, Thomas

Feminist Communication Theories

Identity Theories Whiteness Theory

Nass, Clifford Media Equation Theory

xxxviiTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Newcomb, Theodore

Co-Orientation Theory

Nietzsche, Friedrich

Agency Ethics Theories Interpretive Theory

Noddings, Nel Ethics Theories

Noelle- Neumann, Elisabeth

Broadcasting Theories Japanese Kuuki Theory Media Effects Theories Public Opinion Theories Spiral Models of Media Effects Spiral of Silence

Norton, Robert Style, Communicator Trait Theories

Nussbaum, Jon Communication Across the Life Span

O’Donnell- Trujillo, Nick

Organizational Communication Theories

Organizational Culture

Oetzel, John G. Conflict Communication Theories Effective Intercultural Workgroup

Communication Theory

Ogawa, Dennis Interracial Communication

Ogden, C. K. Meaning Theories

Olien, Clarice Public Opinion Theories

Olson, David Family Communication Theories

Olson, Scot Robert

International Communication Theories

Omi, Michael Racial Formation Theory

Ong, Walter Meaning Theories Medium Theory

Ono, Kent Vernacular Discourse

Oravec, Christine

Environmental Communication Theories

Orbe, Mark P. Co-Cultural Theory Identity Theories Interracial Communication

Ortiz, Fernando Transculturation

Theorists Entry Titles

Osborn, Michael M.

Metaphor Myth and Mythic

Criticism

Osgood, Charles Cross-Cultural Communication Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

Pacanowsky, Michael

Organizational Communication Theories

Organizational Culture

Palmgreen, Phillip

Activation Theory of Information Exposure

Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Panini Asian Communication Theory

Parameswaran, Radhika

Cultural Studies Postcolonial Feminism

Paramitas Ethics Theories

Paredes, Américo

Latino Perspectives

Parsons, Talcott Values Studies: History and Concepts Values Theory: Sociocultural

Dimensions and Frameworks

Pearce, W. Barnett

Conflict Communication Theories Coordinated Management of

Meaning Interpersonal Communication

Theories Rules Theories

Peirce, Charles S.

Interpretive Communities Theory Interpretive Theory Meaning Theories Semiotics and Semiology Traditions of Communication Theory

Perelman, Chaïm Argumentation Theories Rhetorical Theory

Peterson, Eric Performance Theories

Peterson, Theodore

Journalism and Theories of the Press

Petronio, Sandra Self-Disclosure Privacy Management Theory

(Continued)

xxxviii Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Pukui, Mary Kawena

Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono Theory

Putnam, Linda Bona Fide Group Theory Group Communication Theories Negotiation Theory System Theory

Quintilian Classical Rhetorical Theory

Radway, Janice Interpretive Communities Theory Gender and Media Popular Culture Theories

Rafaeli, Sheizaf Computer-Mediated Communication

Rancer, Andrew S.

Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal Aggressiveness Theory

Raven, Bertram Compliance Gaining Strategies Dyadic Power Theory Power, Interpersonal

Rawls, John Community Ethics Theories Media Ethics Theories

Ray, Michael Advertising Theories

Reeves, Byron Media Equation Theory

Reid, Scott Social Identity Theory

Ribeau, Sidney Interracial Communication

Robertson, Roland Globalization Theories

Rokeach, Milton Values Studies: History and Concepts Values Theory: Sociocultural

Dimensions and Frameworks

Roloff, Michael Conflict Communication Theories

Rosengren, Karl Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Ross, W. D. Media Ethics Theories

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques

Ethics Theories Public Opinion Theories

Rheingold, Howard

Digital Cultures

Richards, I. A. Meaning Theories Metaphor Rhetorical Theory

Theorists Entry Titles

Petty, Richard Advertising Theories Elaboration Likelihood Theory Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Political Communication Theories

Philipsen, Gerry Community Ethnography of Communication Rules Theories Speech Codes Theory

Piaget, Jean Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Communication Skills Theories Constructivism Critical Constructivism Empathy Intrapersonal Communication Theories

Plato Classical Rhetorical Theory Learning and Communication Meaning Theories Rhetorical Theory Traditions of Communication Theory Values Studies: History and Concepts

Pollock, Della Performance Ethnography

Pollock, Griselda Spectatorship

Poole, Marshall Scott

Group and Organizational Structuration Theory

Group Communication Theories Rules Theories

Poster, Mark New Media Theory

Potter, Jonathan Discourse Theory and Analysis Positioning Theory

Powell, Walter Institutional Theories of Organizational Communication

Poyatos, Fernando

Chronemics

Pribram, Karl Silence, Silences, and Silencing

Prochaska, James

Campaign Communication Theories

Puar, Jasbir Queer Theory

Pudovkin, V. I. Film Theories

xxxixTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Ricoeur, Paul Critical Organizational Communication

Hermeneutics

Robinson, John Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow

Rogers, Carl Dialogue Theories Empathy Humanistic Perspective Rogerian Dialogue Theory Traditions of Communication

Theory

Rogers, Everett M.

Culture and Communication Diffusion of Innovations Entertainment–Education Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow

Rogers, L. Edna Relational Communication Theory Relational Control Theory

Rollins, Boyd C. Dyadic Power Theory

Roskos-Ewoldsen, David

Cognitive Theories

Rowe, Aimee Carrillo

Privilege

Ruesch, Jürgen Pragmatics

Russell, Daniel Sense-Making

Rust, Paula Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories

Sacks, Harvey Conversation Analysis Ethnomethodology Language and Communication Membership Categorization

Analysis (MCA) Rules Theories

Said, Edward Culture and Communication Dramatism and Dramatistic

Pentad Postcolonial Theory

Sanchez, George Latino Perspectives

Śankara, Adi Hindu Communication Theory

Sapir, Edward Cultural Types Theories Linguistic Relativity

Theorists Entry Titles

Saussure, Ferdinand de

Consequentiality of Communication Cultural Studies Documentary Film Theories Film Theories Language and Communication Meaning Theories Poststructuralism Rules Theories Semiotics and Semiology Traditions of Communication Theory

Schank, Roger Cognitive Theories

Schechner, Richard

Cultural Performance Theory Performance Ethnography Performance Theories

Schegloff, Emmanuel

Conversation Analysis Language and Communication Rules Theories

Schein, Edgar Organizational Socialization and Assimilation

Schenk-Hamlin, William

Compliance Gaining Strategies

Schiller, Herbert Flow and Contra-Flow Free Flow Doctrine Globalization Theories International Communication

Theories Power and Power Relations

Schleiermacher, Friedrich

Hermeneutics Interpretive Theory

Schmidt, David Compliance Gaining Strategies

Schramm, Wilbur Constitutive View of Communication Journalism and Theories of the Press Media and Mass Communication

Theories Propaganda Theory

Schutz, Alfred Ethnomethodology Social Action Media Studies

Schutz, William Interpersonal Communication Theories

Schwartz, Shalom

Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and Frameworks

(Continued)

xl Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Siebert, Fred Journalism and Theories of the Press

Sigman, Stuart J. Consequentiality of Communication

Simmel, George Interpretive Theory

Singhal, Arvind Entertainment–Education

Skinner, B. F. Attitude Theory Communication Skills Theories Learning and Communication Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories

Slater, Michael D. Spiral Models of Media Effects

Sloop, John Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories

Vernacular Discourse

Smith, Rachel A. Stigma Communication

Snowden, David Sense-Making

Solomon, Denise Cognitive Theories Relational Uncertainty

Spender, Dale Feminist Communication Theories

Spitzberg, Brian Communication Skills Theories Competence Theories

Spivak, Gayatri Chakrovorty

Feminist Communication Theories Neocolonialism Postcolonial Feminism Postcolonial Theory

Staat, Arthur Attitude Theory

Stephan, Cookie White

Conflict Communication Theories

Stephan, Walter Conflict Communication Theories

Stewart, John Dialogue Theories

Stohl, Cynthia Bona Fide Group Theory Functional Group Communication

Theory Group Communication Theories System Theory

Storey, John Popular Culture Theories

Strauss, Anselm Grounded Theory

Strodtbeck, Fred Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and Frameworks

Theorists Entry Titles

Scott, Marvin Accounts and Account Giving

Scott, Walter Dill

Advertising Theories

Searle, John Ethnomethodology Interpersonal Communication

Theories Language and Communication Performance Ethnography Performance Theories Speech Act Theories

Sebeok, Thomas A.

Semiotics and Semiology

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky

Queer Theory

Selznick, Philip Institutional Theories of Organizational Communication

Sethi, Suresh Corporate Campaign Theories

Shannon, Claude Constitutive View of Communication Cybernetics Information Theory Mathematical Theory of

Communication Traditions of Communication Theory

Shaw, Donald Agenda-Setting Theory Broadcasting Theories Framing Theory Media Effects Theories Public Opinion Theories

Sherif, Muzafer Advertising Theories Attitude Theory Persuasion and Social Influence

Theories Political Communication Theories Social Judgment Theory

Shimanoff, Susan B.

Rules Theories

Shome, Raka Cultural Studies Feminist Communication Theories Postcolonial Feminism Postcolonial Theory

Shugart, Helene Feminist Communication Theories

xliTheorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Sudnow, David Conversation Analysis

Sunzi Asian Communication Theory

Swales, John Community

Tajfel, Henri Identity Theories

Tannen, Deborah

Genderlect Theory Gender Role Theory Rules Theories Social Interaction Theories

Tarde, Gabriel Diffusion of Innovations

Taussig, Michael Silence, Silences, and Silencing

Taylor, Dalmas Interpersonal Communication Theories

Relational Communication Theory Self-Disclosure

Taylor, James Actor–Network Theory Constitutive View of Communication Organizational Communication

Theories Organizational Co-Orientation

Theory

te Molder, Hedwig

Discourse Theory and Analysis

Tenayuca, Emma

Latino Perspectives

Thibault, John Interpersonal Communication Theories

Thomas, Kenneth Conflict Communication Theories

Thomas, William

Attitude Theory Interpretive Theory Symbolic Interactionism Values Studies: History and Concepts

Tichenor, Phillip Public Opinion Theories

Ting-Toomey, Stella

Conflict Communication Theories Cross-Cultural Communication Face Negotiation Theory Facework Theories Identity Theories Intercultural Communication

Theories

Theorists Entry Titles

Tölölyan, Khachig Diaspora

Tompkins, Philip Critical Organizational Communication

Organizational Control Theory Organizational Culture Organizational Identity Theory

Toulmin, Stephen

Argumentation Theories Constructivism Critical Constructivism

Tracy, Karen Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis Ordinary Democracy

Trager, George Paralanguage

Triandis, Harry Cross-Cultural Communication Values Theory: Sociocultural

Dimensions and Frameworks

Tuchman, Gaye Gender and Media

Tunstall, Jeremy Flow and Contra-Flow

Turkle, Sherry New Media Theory

Turner, John C. Identity Theories

Turner, Victor Cultural Performance Theory Performance Ethnography Performance Theories

Ury, William Negotiation Theory

Van Dijk, Jan Network Society

Van Dijk, Teun Cognitive Theories Critical Discourse Analysis Discourse Theory and Analysis

Van Eemeren, Frans

Argumentation Theories

Van Elteren, Mel Americanization of Media

Van Langenhove Positioning Theory

Van Maanen, John

Organizational Socialization and Assimilation

Varela, Francisco

Constructivism Cybernetics

von Neumann, John

Cybernetics Organizational Co-Orientation

Theory

(Continued)

xlii Theorists

Theorists Entry Titles

Wetherell, Margaret

Positioning Theory

Whorf, Benjamin Lee

Linguistic Relativity

Wiemann, John Communication Skills Theories

Wiener, Norbert Cybernetics System Theory Traditions of

Communication Theory

Williams, Raymond

Broadcasting Theories Cultural Studies Popular Culture Theories Power and Power Relations

Wilson, Steven Cognitive Theories

Winant, Howard Racial Formation Theory

Winston, Brian New Media Theory

Wiseman, Richard

Compliance Gaining Strategies

Witte, Kim Campaign Communication Theories

Wittgenstein, Ludwig

Ethnomethodology Interpretive Theory Language and Communication Pragmatics Speech Act Theory

Wodak, Ruth

Critical Discourse Analysis

Wolf, Julia Penelope

Feminist Communication Theories

Zerubavel, Eviatar

Silence, Silences, and Silencing

Zhuangzi Asian Communication Theory

Taoist Communication Theory

Znaniecki, Florian

Attitude Theory

Theorists Entry Titles

Vygotsky, Leo Activity Theory Communication and Language

Acquisition and Development Communication Skills Theories Critical Constructivism Intrapersonal Communication

Theories

Walther, Joseph B.

Social Information Processing Theory

Walton, Richard Negotiation Theory

Wander, Phillip Critical Rhetoric Ideological Rhetoric

Warren, John T. Critical Communication Pedagogy

Watzlawick, Paul

Constructivism Interpersonal Communication

Theories Palo Alto Group Pragmatics Relational Control Theory Rules Theories Social Interaction Theories System Theory

Weaver, Richard Information Theory Traditions of Communication Theory

Weaver, Warren Constitutive View of Communication Information Theory

Weber, Max Institutional Theories of Organizational Communication

Interpretive Theory Modernism in Communication

Theory Social Action Media Studies

Weick, Karl Organizational Communication Theories

Organizing, Process of Rules Theories Sense-Making System Theory

Weiner, Bernard Attribution Theory

Wenger, Etienne Community Community of Practice

xliii

About the Editors and Editorial Board

General Editors

Stephen W. Littlejohn is an adjunct professor of com- munication and journalism at the University of New Mexico. He is also a communication consultant and mediator. He has a long-standing interest in commu- nication theory, having coauthored Theories of Human Communication, currently going into its 10th edition. In addition to numerous papers and articles, Littlejohn has also coauthored several books, includ- ing Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide, Elements of Speech Communication, Persuasive Transactions, Engaging Communication in Conflict: Systemic Practice, Mediation: Empowerment in Conflict Management, Facework: Bridging Theory and Practice, and Communication, Conflict, and the Management of Difference. He received his PhD in communication at the University of Utah.

Karen A. Foss is a regents professor and a professor of communication and journalism at the University of New Mexico. She earned a PhD in communication from the University of Iowa and an MA in communi- cation from the University of Oregon, and she has been at the forefront of bringing issues of gender and feminist perspectives into the communication disci- pline. She was named Scholar of the Year at Humboldt State University, a Presidential Teaching Fellow at the University of New Mexico, and Gender Scholar of the Year for 2005 by the Southern Communication Association. She also was awarded the Francine Merritt Award, given by the National Communication Association, for contributions to the lives of women in communication. She is the coauthor of Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, Women Speak: The Eloquence of Women’s Lives, Inviting Transformation:

Presentational Speaking for a Changing World, Feminist Rhetorical Theories, and Theories of Human Communication, which have consistently defined and challenged the communication discipline.

Editorial Board

Brenda J. Allen is an associate dean in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Colorado Denver. Her research and teaching areas are organizational communication, social identity, social construction, critical pedagogy, and computer- mediated communication. Among her numerous publications is a groundbreaking book titled Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity. She is a coeditor of the International and Intercultural Communication Annual, and she recently received a Master Teacher Award from the Western States Communication Association.

J. Kevin Barge is a professor of communication at Texas A&M University. He received his MA and PhD degrees from the University of Kansas. His research interests center on developing a social con- structionist approach to management and leadership, exploring the role of appreciative forms of communi- cation to transform organizations and articulating the relationship between dialogue and organizing in organizational and community contexts. His research has been published in the Academy of Management Review, Management Communication Quarterly, Journal of Applied Communication Research, The OD Practitioner, Communication Theory, and Communication Monographs.

xliv About the Editors and Editorial Board

Roger de la Garde is a retired professor of sociol- ogy, Department of Communication, Laval University (Quebec, Canada). Still active in the academic field, he continues to supervise doctoral theses and remains is editor of the scientific journal Communication, which he cofounded in 1975. Past president of the Canadian Communication Association, his research interests and publications cover popular culture, mass communication, ideol- ogy, public discourse, and identity. He has contrib- uted to the Canadian Journal of Communication; Media, Culture & Society; and the Encyclopedia of Television. He is a member of the editorial board of Communication Theory and Cyberlegenda.

Lisa A. Flores is an associate professor of commu- nication at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research explores rhetorical dynamics of dom- ination and subordination, principally as linked to race and gender. Current projects include a rhe- torical history of Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans and a rhetorical analysis of contempo- rary representations of masculinity. Her work has appeared in such places as the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Critical Studies in Media Communication, and Text and Performance Quarterly.

Vijai N. Giri is an associate professor in the Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. He received his PhD in Interpersonal Communication from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur in January 2002. He has been teaching undergradu- ate, postgraduate, and MBA students since 1984. His excellent academic record is evidenced by his many awards and distinctions. To mention a few, he was awarded the National Merit Scholarship and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) Fellowship, and he has visited Germany several times to conduct his research in the area of organizational-intercultural communication. He has published a book, six book chapters, and about 30 research articles in refereed journals. He is a member of the editorial board of Communication Theory. He worked as the guest editor of International Journal of Communication and ad hoc reviewer of Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal. He organizes short-term training programs on Interpersonal Communication for college teachers and middle-level managers. His current research interests include interpersonal, intercultural, and organizational communication.

Charlotte Kroløkke holds a PhD and serves as an associate professor of communication and cultural studies at the Institute of Literature, Culture and Media at the University of Southern Denmark. She is the coauthor of Gender Communication Theories and Analyses: From Silence to Performance and the author of several articles within the areas of computer-mediated communication, gender and technology, and reproductive technology. She is currently working on a project on three-dimen- sional fetal ultrasound imaging in which focus rests on the ways in which participants assign person- hood, gender, and nationality to the fetus. Kroløkke is also board member of the Danish National Gender Association and vice-chair of the board of the Danish National Gender Library, Kvinfo.

Mark P. Orbe received his PhD from Ohio University and is a professor of communication and diversity in the School of Communication at Western Michigan University where he holds a joint appointment in the Gender and Women’s Program. His teaching and research interests cen- ter on the inextricable relationship between cul- ture and communication as played out in a number of contexts (intrapersonal, inter personal, inter- group, mass media). He has presented over 80 papers at regional, national, and international aca- demic conferences, published close to 75 articles in scholarly journals or chapters in edited books. He has also published seven books to date, includ- ing the seminal work, Constructing Co-Cultural Theory: An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communi cation. Orbe is the immediate past edi- tor of The Journal of Intergroup Relations, cur- rent coeditor of The Inter national and Intercultural Communication Annual, as well as the guest edi- tor of a Critical Studies in Media Communication special issue on race and reality TV.

James Taylor is a professor emeritus of communica- tion science at the Université de Montréal, a depart- ment that he initiated as its first chair in 1970. His role in developing communication studies in Canada was recognized by the university at the time of its hundredth anniversary, by naming him one of its pioneers. Author or coauthor of eight books and nearly a hundred published papers, he was honored by being named Fellow of the International Communi cation Association in 2007. His role in breaking new ground in the development of a the- ory of communication as the basis of organization

xlvAbout the Editors and Editorial Board

has recently been recognized by the holding of a major international conference that addresses this theme in May of 2008. He is now preparing a new book aimed at publication in 2009.

Ingrid Volkmer is an associate professor of media and communication, University of Melbourne, Australia. She has held visiting appointments at Harvard and MIT. Her main field of interest is the influence of globalization on public cultures of vari-

ous societies. She has published widely in this area. Among her latest publications are News in Public Memory and an article, “Governing the Spatial Reach: Sphere of Influence and Challenges to Global Media Policy.” Volkmer is an associate editor of the Encyclopedia Globalization and serves as chair of the Philosophy of Communication Division of the International Communication Association and on the advisory board of various journals, such as Global Media & Communication.

xlvii

Contributors

Walid Afifi University of California, Santa Barbara

Brenda J. Allen University of Colorado Denver

Mark DaCosta Alleyne Georgia State University

Hector Amaya Southwestern University

Peter A. Andersen San Diego State University

Rob Anderson Saint Louis University

Pat Arneson Duquesne University

John Arthos Denison University

Molefi Kete Asante Temple University

Austin S. Babrow Purdue University

J. Kevin Barge Texas A&M University

Leslie A. Baxter University of Iowa

Michael J. Beatty University of Miami

Tim Berard Kent State University

Teresa Bergman University of the Pacific

Joseph A. Bonito University of Arizona

Robert Bostrom University of Kentucky

Jonathan M. Bowman University of San Diego

Oliver Boyd-Barrett Bowling Green State University

Janet A. Bridges Sam Houston State University

Benjamin J. Broome Arizona State University

Larry Browning University of Texas at Austin

Tom Bruneau Radford University

Judee K. Burgoon University of Arizona

Rhiannon Bury Athabasca University

Kristina Busse University of South Alabama

Milton N. Campos Université de Montréal

Robert E. Carlson University of Nebraska at Omaha

John Carr University of New Mexico

Donald J. Cegala Ohio State University

Briankle G. Chang University of Massachusetts Amherst

Karma R. Chávez University of New Mexico

Guo-Ming Chen University of Rhode Island

Young Cheon Cho California State University, Chico

Kenneth N. Cissna University of South Florida

Dana L. Cloud University of Texas at Austin

Joelle Collier College of Santa Fe

Mary Jane Collier University of New Mexico

François Cooren Université de Montréal

Steven Corman Arizona State University

Patricia Olivia Covarrubias Baillet University of New Mexico

xlviii Contributors

Bryan Crable Villanova University

Robert T. Craig University of Colorado Boulder

Janet M. Cramer University of New Mexico

Stuart Cunningham Queensland University of Technology

Fabienne Darling-Wolf Temple University

John J. Davies Brigham Young University

Dennis K. Davis Penn State University

Olga Idriss Davis Arizona State University

Roger de la Garde Laval University

Sarah Amira De la Garza Arizona State University

Stanley A. Deetz University of Colorado Boulder

Sarah E. Dempsey University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Alan R. Dennis Indiana University

Brenda Dervin Ohio State University

Elizabeth A. Dickinson University of New Mexico

Wimal Dissanayake University of Hawai‘i

Lewis Donohew University of Kentucky

Norah E. Dunbar University of Oklahoma

Deborah Dunn Westmont College

Mohan J. Dutta Purdue University

Amy Ebesu Hubbard University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

Eric M. Eisenberg University of South Florida

Donald Ellis University of Hartford

Valentín Escudero University of La Coruña

Lisa A. Flores University of Colorado Boulder

Karen A. Foss University of New Mexico

Sonja K. Foss University of Colorado Denver

Lawrence R. Frey University of Colorado Boulder

Shiv Ganesh Waikato Management School

Robert H. Gass California State University, Fullerton

John Gastil University of Washington

Kathleen M. German Miami University

Howard Giles University of California, Santa Barbara

Vijai N. Giri Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India

Daena J. Goldsmith Lewis & Clark College

Loril M. Gossett University of North Carolina at Charlotte

John O. Greene Purdue University

Kathryn Greene Rutgers University

Ronald Walter Greene University of Minnesota

Cindy L. Griffin Colorado State University

Shelton A. Gunaratne Minnesota State University Moorhead

Joshua Gunn University of Texas at Austin

Eddie Harmon-Jones Texas A&M University

Robert Hassan University of Melbourne

Michael L. Hecht Pennsylvania State University

Dean E. Hewes University of Minnesota

Charles A. Hill University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh

David Holmes Monash University

Youichi Ito Akita International University

Ronald L. Jackson II University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Fern L. Johnson Clark University

Vamsee Juluri University of San Francisco

Min-Sun Kim University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

xlixContributors

Young Yun Kim University of Oklahoma

D. Lawrence Kincaid Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Leanne K. Knobloch University of Illinois

Ascan F. Koerner University of Minnesota

Cheris Kramarae University of Oregon

Gary L. Kreps George Mason University

Klaus Krippendorff University of Pennsylvania

Charlotte Kroløkke University of Southern Denmark

Steve J. Kulich Shanghai International Studies University

Teruyuki Kume Rikkyo University

John C. Lammers University of Illinois

James P. Lantolf Penn State University

Kwan Min Lee University of Southern California

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz University of Wisconsin– Parkside

Thomas R. Lindlof University of Kentucky

Lisbeth Lipari Denison University

Stephen W. Littlejohn University of New Mexico

Owen Hanley Lynch Southern Methodist University

Susan Mackey-Kallis Villanova University

Virginia McDermott University of New Mexico

Raymie E. McKerrow Ohio University

Sara L. McKinnon University of New Mexico

Ed McLuskie Boise State University

Mark Lawrence McPhail Western College Program at Miami University

Robert D. McPhee Arizona State University

Sandra Metts Illinois State University

Alan C. Mikkelson Whitworth University

Tema Milstein University of New Mexico

Steven Y. Miura University of Hawai‘i at Hilo

Dreama G. Moon California State University, San Marcos

Karen K. Myers University of California, Santa Barbara

Scott A. Myers West Virginia University

Charles M. Naumer University of Washington

Anne Maydan Nicotera George Mason University

Janice M Odom Valdosta State University

John G. Oetzel University of New Mexico

Mark P. Orbe Western Michigan University

Michael M. Osborn University of Memphis

Alessandra Padula Università degli Studi di L’Aquila

Saumya Pant University of New Mexico

Charles Pavitt University of Delaware

Kevin J. Pearce Bryant University

Sandra Petronio Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Patrick Lee Plaisance Colorado State University

Marshall Scott Poole University of Illinois

Michael H. Prosser Shanghai International Studies University

Artemio Ramirez Arizona State University

Andrew S. Rancer University of Akron

Scott Reid University of California, Santa Barbara

Jessica S. Robles University of Colorado Boulder

L. Edna Rogers University of Utah

l Contributors

Richard A. Rogers Northern Arizona University

Michael Roloff Northwestern University

Abran J. Salazar University of Rhode Island

Jennifer A. Samp University of Georgia

Kim Christian Schrøder Roskilde University

Janice Schuetz University of New Mexico

Cliff Scott University of North Carolina at Charlotte

John S. Seiter Utah State University, Logan

James Shanahan Fairfield University

Susan B. Shimanoff San Francisco State University

Stuart J. Sigman Naropa University

Kami J. Silk Michigan State University

Arvind Singhal University of Texas El Paso

Michael D. Slater Ohio State University

Rachel A. Smith Pennsylvania State University

Thomas M. Steinfatt University of Miami

Cynthia Stohl University of California, Santa Barbara

Scott R. Stroud University of Texas- Pan American

Robert C. Swieringa Grand Valley State University

James Taylor Université de Montréal

Hedwig te Molder Wageningen University

Jennifer A. Theiss Rutgers University

Pradip Thomas University of Queensland

Stella Ting-Toomey California State University at Fullerton

Karen Tracy University of Colorado Boulder

Sarah J. Tracy Arizona State University

April Vannini European Graduate School

Don Rodney Vaughan East Mississippi Community College

Ingrid Volkmer University of Melbourne

John T. Warren Southern Illinois University

David Weiss Montana State University Billings

Olaf H. Werder University of New Mexico

Christopher Joseph Westgate Texas A&M University

Bryan B. Whaley University of San Francisco

Michele White Tulane University

Julia T. Wood University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Xiaosui Xiao Hong Kong Baptist University

Gust A. Yep San Francisco State University

Jing Yin University of Hawai‘i at Hilo

Julie Yingling Humboldt State University

li

Introduction

Communication students frequently approach librarians seeking a source that will provide a ready summary of a particular theory or tradition. Communication scholars also occasionally need a good central reference for their teaching and research. This encyclopedia provides a one-stop source for theories and theoretical concepts and a relatively comprehensive overview of the entire field of communication theory. It is a significant resource because it summarizes in one place the diversity of theory in the communication field. Yet unlike larger topical encyclopedias that try to cover all topics in many volumes, this is a relatively small set focused just on theory. It will provide an excellent starting place for individuals seeking information on the various topics covered. Furthermore, readers will be able to see how topics relate to one another, get a sense of larger traditions and histories, and find a variety of bibliographical sources with which they can begin to expand their reading lists.

About This Encyclopedia

This encyclopedia is a two-volume set that, in more than 300 entries, offers current descriptions of the theories that explain numerous aspects of com munication and present the background issues and concepts that comprise these theories. These entries have been written by nearly 200 contribu- tors from 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, India, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Entries range in length—from 1,000 to 3,000 words, depending upon the scope and detail required. To ensure adequate coverage, an editorial board of 10 members—also of diverse cultures and countries of origin—was formed to review the entries. All are recognized experts in several areas within communication theory and have contributed

significantly to its development. All reviewers are also contributors.

The entries are written for the introductory reader—students who have little or no background in the topic. For the most part, contributors have avoided unnecessary jargon and defined terms as needed. Although many of the entries require attentive reading, serious readers will find them accessible and informative, and those who want more advanced treatment can pursue further readings or entries in the bibliography. Readers who may have trouble understanding an entry can move to related topics identified in the “See also” sections and then return to the more diffi- cult one.

We made the decision to feature elements, con- cepts, dimensions, and traditions of theory, as well as to feature individual theories, as entries. Individual theorists are listed separately with refer- ence to the entries in which their work is discussed. Entries do not include citations, but each lists a few key sources as Further Readings. Cross-references are provided in the “See also” section at the end of each entry. A single classified bibliography of major theoretical works is also included. Readers can access the information in a number of ways:

The alphabetical list of entries at the beginning of each volume provides the easiest way for a reader to identify topics of interest. Readers may want to start here by scanning the list of topics to identify those most relevant to their research. The Reader’s Guide at the beginning of the set provides a classified list of topics organized around 17 themes. With this guide readers can begin with a broad theme and see which entries relate to it. This guide is also of value for showing connections among theories and for developing a sense of the field as a whole.

lii Introduction

The alphabetical list of theorists adjacent to the Reader’s Guide will be an important index for readers who wish to learn more about individual scholars and their work. This list identifies the entries that cover each theorist’s work. The Selected Bibliography of Major Works by Topic, located at the back of Volume 2, will be a vital resource for readers seeking original works. Readers can scan the alphabetical listing of topics to find major works of interest. This tool comes with instructions on how best to use it. The Chronology, located immediately after this introduction, lists major events in the history of communication theory. This tool facilitates an understanding of the various developments in the field of communication as a whole. The index is an obvious method of accessing information. It is a detailed list of topics with page references.

A Brief History

Communication as a concept always has been with us, but the origins of the discipline are more recent. In the United States, the humanistic roots of the discipline can be found in the study of rhetoric in ancient Greece and Rome, while the social scien- tific side typically dates its origins to the rise of studies of mass media, public opinion, propa- ganda, and persuasion early in the 20th century and especially during World War II. Both strands had a decidedly pragmatic bent: The five canons of rhetoric—invention, organization, style, delivery, and memory—were designed to help a speaker bet- ter prepare for and argue a position in the court, the assembly, or at a ceremonial event. Social sci- entists had a similarly pragmatic concern in under- standing the functions and possibilities for communication in advertising, media, and technol- ogy as well as in face-to-face contexts.

Communication theory, then, followed from the pragmatic concerns about the study of communi- cation. At first, communication scholars turned to existing disciplines for theories—not surprising since virtually every discipline concerned with the human being must study communication to some degree. The recognition of social sciences as legiti- mate disciplines after World War II gave even more

credence to the contributions of psychology and sociology for understanding human communica- tive behavior. European scholars began to influ- ence communication theory in the United States after World War II as well; heavily influenced by Marxist theories, European scholars from a variety of disciplines have been responsible for the intro- duction of critical–cultural theories and methods into the study of communication.

Gradually, however, separate communication departments began to form. At first often referred to as departments of speech communication to reflect both the rhetorical and social scientific roots, most departments today are simply called departments of communication or communication studies. In contrast to scholars in related disci- plines who tend to consider communication a sec- ondary process for transmitting information about the world, communication scholars see communi- cation as the organizing principle of human social life: Communication constructs the social world rather than simply providing the means for describ- ing that world.

Of course, theories of communication are not distinctive to the Western tradition and the United States. Virtually every culture has been concerned with the nature and functions of communication, and communication scholars are beginning to integrate theories from a variety of countries and cultures. Feminist scholars have sought to describe ways feminine worldviews might foster different modes of communication since the 1970s. Afrocentric and Asiacentric communication are perhaps the best articulated bodies of work to date that describe the communication assump- tions and practices of African Americans and Asians, respectively. Increasingly, then, communi- cation scholars are seeking to understand similari- ties and differences across cultures and to articulate more nuanced theories to reflect these more com- prehensive understandings of how communication works.

Although the communication field now has the legitimacy and coherence that comes from disci- plinary status, it remains a continually evolving and changing discipline. This encyclopedia will offer the student of communication a sense of the history, development, and current status of the discipline with an emphasis on the theories that

liiiIntroduction

comprise it. We hope readers in communication will engage these theories in a spirit of ongoing inquiry that is crucial to the continued develop- ment of the field. And we hope those in related fields will gain a better understanding of what the communication discipline is all about.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to our editorial board and to all of our contributors, listed by name at the beginning of the encyclopedia. Their expertise, effort, and commitment contributed to the excellence of this project. We are especially indebted to our colleagues in the Communication and Journalism Department

at the University of New Mexico who provided guidance and wrote contributions to this work. This work is the product not only of authors and managing editors, but also of a team of profession- als at Sage Publications who made the successful completion of the project possible by their many hours of work from its inception to final publica- tion. We want to express particular appreciation to these individuals: Jim Brace-Thompson, Yvette Pollastrini, Laura Notton, Bonnie Freeman, Renee Willers, Kevin Gleason, Sandy Zilka Livingston, Joan Shapiro, and Kate Schroeder. Because of the efforts of all involved, we are confident that this encyclopedia will be an important resource about and reference for communication theories.

lv

Chronology

This chronology contains major themes and devel- opments in each period and is not intended to be exhaustive.

Classical Period

Foundations of Western thought are established in ancient Greece and Rome.

Western debates on epistemology, ontology, ethics, and axiology form the bases of Western philosophy, prefiguring debates about knowledge, being, and values that continue to the present day within communication. Plato and Aristotle lay foundations for classical rhetorical theory. Forensics is established as the field of legal communication. Ancient Greek rhetoricians grapple with what constitutes persuasive technique and skill. Cicero codifies the classical canons of rhetoric— invention (invention), disposition (organization), elocution (style), memoria (memory), and pronunciation (delivery). Cicero and other Romans develop speaking standards consistent with the Roman legal code and delineated legal issues that must be argued. Greeks and Romans such as Theophrastus, Cicero, and Quintilian study gestures as persuasive accompaniment to rhetorical discourses, setting the stage for contemporary studies of nonverbal communication. Augustine writes On Christian Doctrine, which sets out a guide for interpreting scriptures, later to be taken as one of the foundational works in hermeneutics. Eastern religions and philosophies emerge with future implications for how non-Western cultures will come to think about and practice communication. Laozi and Zhuangzi found

Taoism, which remains influential in Eastern thought regarding communication, human relationships, and values. The creation of the Vedas through an oral tradition in India provides a basis for religious rituals in the Hindu tradition. The creation of the texts known as Upaniśads in ancient India form the core of modern Hinduism. Confucius’s teaching begins to influence many strands of religion and philosophy, including modern-day ideas about communication. Buddha and his disciplines travel in what is now northern India and Nepal and spread teachings that were later written by disciples and became the foundation of Buddhism. Bhartfhari and Śankara analyze language and speech, providing a foundation for Hindu communication theory. The concept of rasa is developed in the writings of Bharata and Abhinavagupta in India.

The role of African civilizations in human life, communication, rhetoric, and world history is established.

Egyptian and Nubian thought emerge. Imhotep, Ptahhotep, Kagemni, Merikare, and Duauf establish a classical set of philosophies that contribute to Afrocentric ideas about communication.

1600 to 1700

The age of rationalism and the Enlightenment begin, as major issues in epistemology are set by philosophers of this period.

René Descartes develops ideas about the cognitive and rational basis of human experience, becoming a major influence in Western thought in many branches of science and humanities.

lvi Chronology

Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes about the social contract as a means of establishing order in society, greatly influencing Western concepts of the person and social life. Immanuel Kant extends Western rationalism by integrating ideas about empirical experience and human knowing. John Milton writes Areopagitica, which sets the stage for freedom of speech, leading to much work in public communication in the centuries to come.

The Reformation, begun a century earlier, contrib- utes to the broadening of reading and the need for textual interpretation.

Matthias Flacius, a follower of Luther, develops principles for scriptural interpretation.

1800s

Scholars intensify an interest in gesture and vari- ous forms of expression.

Charles Darwin writes The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. Garrick Mallery compares North American Plains sign language with other languages, including that of the deaf. The elocution movement, focusing on the art of expression in public address, anticipates an intense interest in communication as performance in the next century.

Dialectical thinking emerges, influencing social critiques.

Georg Hegel proposes a philosophy of change based on dialectic, which influences Karl Marx and later dialectical and critical schools of thought in communication. Following the ideas of Hegel, Marx publishes social and economic critiques that form the foundation for 20th-century communist and critical thought. Friedrich Nietzsche creates a philosophy of power and self-interest that has influenced social scientific thinking to the present day, including theories of communication.

Interest in collective action and public communica- tion becomes a topic of scholarly interest.

Crowd theories and theories of mass society set the stage for media effects work in the following century.

Gabriel Tarde introduces the concept of diffusion of innovations, later to inspire a whole tradition of work in the following century. British utilitarian thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham set the stage for intense interest in public communication and democratic processes.

Major work centers on the relationship among signs and between signs and signified objects.

Charles Sanders Peirce founds the field of semiotics, which continues to influence the study of signs, language, and logic to this day.

Early persuasion work begins.

St. Elmo Lewis proposes a stair-step hierarchical framework for sales.

1900 to 1910

Interest in collective action continues.

The term fandom comes to be used for sports-club fans and later science fiction fans as well, setting the stage for more recent studies of fans and fandom. Walter Dill Scott begins historic research on advertising.

Psychoanalysis captures intellectual interest, later to become a major factor in behavioral and social theory.

Sigmund Freud publishes landmark works on psychoanalysis, setting a counterpoint to rationalist empiricist philosophies of human agency.

1910 to 1920

Interest in nonlinguistic expression continues.

Wilhelm Wundt conceives of gestural communication as a universal language.

Phenomenology becomes a branch of philosophy.

Edmund Husserl publishes his philosophy of phenomenology, which later impacts thinking throughout the social sciences and humanities, including communication.

lviiChronology

Psychoanalysis continues with intense interest in hidden processes of human thought and action.

Carl Jung’s ideas on the collective unconscious open interest in the study of mythology across several fields, including communication.

Structural theories of language develop.

Ferdinand Saussure publishes Course in General Linguistics, providing a foundation for the study of signs and language that remains alive and influential to the present day.

Studies of collective action turn toward the formal study of organizations.

Max Weber publishes The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, a landmark work giving rise to much 20th century thought on institutions and organizations.

American pragmatism shifts philosophical atten- tion toward practical action.

John Dewey introduces the reflecting thinking process in his classic treatise How We Think, which will later have a huge effect on communication, especially group process.

Attitudes become an object of study, leading the way to serious research and theory development later in the century.

William Thomas and Florian Znanicki define attitude as a mental and neural state of readiness.

1920 to 1930

Studies of mass media rise.

Science fiction fandom becomes apparent. Early media research, based in large part on stimulus-response psychology, assumes powerful media effects leading to the hypodermic needle theory or magic bullet approach. French writers identified film as an art form, referring to it as the “sixth art.” Journalist Walter Lippmann asserted that media develop simplistic “pictures” in the public of a complex social world.

Phenomenology and existentialism advance.

Martin Heidegger publishes major philosophical works in the phenomenological tradition, including his classic Being and Time.

Scholars begin to develop interest in human social behavior and relationships.

Early impression formation studies in psychology provide an impetus for ongoing research on how people make attributions and evaluations of others through communication. Martin Buber publishes I and Thou, which is widely translated and influences studies of communication and dialogue throughout the century and beyond. The now famous studies at the Hawthorne Works outside Chicago led to the discovery of the Hawthorne effect, which sparked intense interest in employee-centered approaches to organizational communication.

Language studies become popular.

I. A. Richards publishes foundational work in literary criticism, semiotics, and meaning, influencing theories of communication to the current day.

Psychologists become intensely interested in how humans think and how cognition relates to behavior.

Jean Piaget begins a 50-year investigation into the stages of human cognitive development, influencing cognitive theory in many fields, including communication. B. F. Skinner develops the radical behaviorism project, which will come to have immense influence in the social sciences.

The critical turn in social theory intensifies.

Felix Weil founds the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany, providing a home for the well-known Frankfurt School, which led the way in Marxist thinking in the 20th century.

1930 to 1940

The first serious work on individual traits begins.

Psychologist Gordon Allport advances the concepts of personality and attitudes, which sets the stage for work on communication traits and persuasion.

lviii Chronology

Studies on signs, language, and meaning continue.

Kenneth Burke begins a career of study and writing on human symbol use and its relationship to identification between persons and groups, later to heavily influence thinking in contemporary rhetoric. Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky publishes highly influential works on human development and language and thought, later to have an impact on critical and linguistic theory. Aleksei Leontiev, a close colleague of Vygotsky, begins work on activity theory, the idea that meanings are created in concrete social-interaction activities. Charles Morris establishes an influential model for dividing semiotics into semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics, which gives rise to interest in studying the pragmatics of language, or how language is used in actual talk. Roman Jakobson defines six functions of language, functions which help further the new pragmatic approach to language and communication. Mind, Self, and Society, based on the lectures of George Herbert Mead, provides the basis of symbolic interactionism, which will have a tremendous impact on social interaction theories of communication. Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir develop the ideas now known as linguistic relativity theory.

Marxist critical theory continues to advance.

Antonio Gramsci writes prison notebooks, substantially elaborating and extending Marxist thought, especially the idea of hegemony. Emma Tenayuca put forward an American perspective on Marxism by applying it to peoples in the United States bound culturally to Mexico.

Studies of media communication grow.

The growing popularity of radio raises important research questions about media effects and leads to such studies as Hadley Cantril’s famous study of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds.

1940 to 1950

Social scientists look more closely at the influence of culture and situation.

David Efron investigates the influence of race and environment on use of gesture. Fernando Ortiz introduces the concept of transculturation, later to influence both cultural and critical studies.

New major works in phenomenology appear.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty begins to publish his ideas about phenomenology.

Social psychology begins to influence thinking about behavior, social action, and communication.

Kurt Lewin, commonly acknowledged as the father of social psychology, develops a field theory of conflict and also explores group influence.

The power and role of the media are explored.

In landmark media-effects studies, Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet shift the view of media from powerful to limited effects, granting much influence to interpersonal rather than mass channels and leading the way to the two-step and multi-step flow models. Harold Lasswell and Charles Wright identify major functions of the press. The Hutchins Commission publishes A Free and Responsible Press, outlining the normative obligations of journalism to society.

As the technical challenges of communication increase, mathematical and engineering approaches emerge.

Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver publish their classic A Mathematical Theory of Communication, which builds an information theory model of communication. The Macy Conferences on Cybernetics bring together important intellectuals of the era. John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern publish Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, which launches an entire field of investigation on rational behavior, interdependency, and negotiation.

Applications of dialectical thinking to critical the- ory become clearer.

lixChronology

Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno publish The Dialectic of Enlightenment, giving rise to the theory of the culture industry. Roland Barthes begins to publish critical works related to literature, semiotics, and society, his influence felt throughout the humanities and social sciences today.

Organizational studies continue.

Philip Selznick’s studies of leadership and administration bring attention to the relationship between institutions and communities.

Serious clinical studies of relational communica- tion begin.

Jürgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson introduce the concept of metacommunication, or communication about communication, moving the study of communication beyond superficial ideas about simple message transmission.

The crucial distinction between sex and gender calls attention to the place and role of women in society.

Simone de Beauvoir publishes her landmark treatise, The Second Sex.

1950 to 1954

Studies of nonverbal communication develop in earnest.

Ray Birdwhistell explores social interaction and becomes known especially for kinesics, the study of symbolic bodily movements. George Trager begins pioneering work into paralanguage and voice quality.

Attitude change research, particularly in social psychology, becomes a major field of study.

Theodore Newcomb publishes a co-orientational model, one of the first relationally oriented approaches, which stimulated much thinking in attitude theory and organizational communication. Carl Hovland and his colleagues begin landmark persuasion studies at Yale University, highly influencing the study of attitude change and

persuasion in several disciplines, including communication. Foundational values studies are produced by Talcott Parsons, Clyde Kluchkhohn, Alex Inkeles, Daniel Levinson, and others.

Studies of media influence intensify.

International communication flow studies begin to show a predominant one-way influence of more powerful nations to less powerful ones. Harold Adams Innis publishes landmark works on the biasing effects of the predominant media of an era. Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm publish their classic Four Theories of the Press, outlining various roles media can take in society.

Rhetorical and language studies broaden to include new forms of discourse and new ways of looking at discourse.

Kenneth Burke introduces the concept of dramatism from literary theory, which sparks a long-term multidisciplinary interest in this topic as a way of understanding communication. Ludwig Wittgenstein publishes Philosophical Investigations, leading the way to the study of meaning as intentional communication.

Cybernetics emerges as an important field.

Norbert Wiener publishes highly influential books on cybernetics and society.

Citizenship is explored.

Thomas Humphrey Marshall conceptualizes citizenship, giving rise to ongoing research in this area.

Group communication studies advance.

Robert Bales first develops interaction process analysis, stimulating much research and theory- building in group communication.

1955 to 1959

Interpersonal communication studies broaden significantly with the introduction of fresh new approaches.

lx Chronology

Carl Rogers begins to publish ideas about client- centered therapy, which launches decades of study of person-centered communication and dialogue. Erving Goffman begins publishing a well-known series of books on human interaction and self- presentation that heavily influenced research and theory building in interpersonal communication. George Kelly presents his personal construct theory, which provides the basis for constructivism in the United States. John French and Bertram Raven publish their highly popular model of interpersonal power, positing five sources of power frequently cited in the communication literature. George Homans publishes a foundational article titled “Social Behavior as Exchange,” opening a scholarly movement throughout the social sciences on social exchange theory, which has had a major influence on studies of interpersonal communication. Fritz Heider publishes his acclaimed book The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. George Trager advances paralinguistics by creating a voice classification system. Edward T. Hall proposes the study of proxemics, or the study of space in communication, in his landmark book The Silent Language.

Powerful media effects models wane.

Joseph Klapper publishes The Effects of Mass Communication, giving credence to the limited- effects theory. Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch introduce the uses and gratifications approach to media, leading to a movement of studies on how people choose and use media and the ways in which they become dependent on media.

Social psychological approaches to attitude and attitude change continue to develop and now begin to have a major impact on the study of persuasion.

Leon Festinger begins a visible program of research on cognitive dissonance, which is to have a major impact on persuasion and attitude studies.

Profound shifts occur in our understanding of lan- guage and discourse.

Noam Chomsky proposes a new way of thinking about language and thought based in transformational grammar.

Stephen Toulmin publishes The Uses of Argument, which is to impact the study of argumentation by directing attention toward informal and away from formal logic.

1960 to 1964

Research on persuasion dominates the empirical research agenda.

Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues publish their landmark work on social judgment theory. William McGuire proposes inoculation theory to explain resistance to persuasion.

Alternative approaches to the study of language broaden the study of symbols and communication.

Michael M. Osborn, Douglas Ehninger, and others begin a decades-long inquiry into the role of metaphor in language, rhetoric, and communication. Murray Edelman takes a communication perspective in his classic treatise The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Jacques Lacan, already a practicing and controversial psychotherapist, begins a 2-decade series of public seminars in which he connects human subjectivity and the unconscious to language, furthering the poststructuralist move in the study of language and society. Hans-Georg Gadamer completes the first edition of his magnum opus Truth and Method, which would propel hermeneutics into social science and humanities scholarship in the coming decades. J. L. Austin publishes How to Do Things with Words, widely considered the beginning of speech act theory. Basil Bernstein produces his theory-breaking article on elaborated and restricted codes.

Critical theory begins a significant foray into com- munication studies.

Jürgen Habermas writes his first book, The Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere, published in English in 1989, which creates intense interest in public democratic communication. Habermas’s publications, spanning nearly 40 years, make him one of the most influential communication theorists in the critical and pragmatic traditions. Richard Hoggart founds the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the Birmingham

lxiChronology

University in United Kingdom, which will become a base for much influential work on power and cultural production. Scholars begin developing postmodern theory as a counterpoint to modernism and in the process open new questions about truth claims and traditional values.

Diffusion theory is published.

Everett Rogers publishes the first edition of his classic book Diffusion of Innovations.

The second wave of feminism begins.

Betty Friedan publishes The Feminine Mystique. Effects of media on society and human thought are explored. Marshall McLuhan publishes landmark works on the biasing effects of media.

1965 to 1969

Qualitative approaches involving careful attention to the details of social life begin to develop.

Harold Garfinkel introduces ethnomethodology. Influenced by ethnomethodology, Harvey Sacks lays the foundation for work in conversation analysis. Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman publish their landmark work on accounts. Dell Hymes proposes an ethnography of speaking, which sparks later interest in the study of cultures in the communication field. Bernie Glaser and Anselm Strauss introduce grounded theory.

Alternative critical theories challenge traditional views of language and discourse in society.

Michel Foucault begins a career of writing and study about the relationship of discourse, language, and knowledge to power relations in society. Jacques Derrida first publishes Of Grammatology in French, introducing the idea of deconstruction, which greatly influenced poststructuralist thinking.

Nonverbal communication studies continue apace.

Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen begin research on types of nonverbal communication, with emphasis on the face and hands. George Trager and others continue work relating paralanguage to animal vocalization. Albert Mehrabian introduces his concept of immediacy, which will have a great effect on the study of nonverbal communication.

Considerable new thinking about human relation- ships begins.

The pragmatic work of the Palo Alto Group becomes widely known when Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Don Jackson write their landmark treatise Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes, which influenced theories of relationships, interpersonal communication, and systems. John Bowlby publishes pioneering work on human relational attachment. With the concept of transparency, Sidney Jourard begins a tradition of research and theory on self-disclosure.

Cybernetics and system theory gain attention.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy popularizes system theory and starts a movement around General System Theory (GST), later inspiring advances in systems theory and complexity theory.

Rhetorical and discourse studies broaden from traditional concepts to an increasingly wide range of phenomena.

Lloyd Bitzer codifies the rhetorical situation, providing a major conceptual center for rhetorical theory. Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca publish their book, The New Rhetoric. John Searle publishes Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language.

Major new proposals in media theory develop.

Gerbner introduces cultivation theory, which grants heavy television viewing great power to affect individuals’ perceptions of the world around them. After studying the 1968 presidential campaign, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw propose an agenda-setting theory of media, which begins a

lxii Chronology

decades-long project to weigh agenda-setting effects. The term johoka is coined in Japan to refer to the use of information technologies and dissemination of information through media to the public, leading to the development of informatization policies in Japan.

Traditional epistemologies are challenged by social approaches.

Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann publish their highly influential work on the social construction of reality, catalyzing a movement in communication and throughout the social sciences.

Gender and cultural perspectives start to gain attention.

The Combahee River collective begins a womanist movement, later theorized by Patricia Hill Collins, to express the perspectives and experiences of Black women.

Cognitive studies in communication are born.

Jean-Blaise Grize begins a career-long project on the logic of everyday communication, developing the concept of schemes, which will later come to be commonplace in cognitive theories of communication.

Communication strategy studies gain popularity.

Gerald Marwell and David Schmidt identify 16 compliance-gaining strategies, sparking a whole tradition of research on this subject. Richard E. Walton and Robert B. McKersie publish their classic book, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, introducing the concepts of distributive and integrative bargaining.

1970 to 1974

Major new developments in philosophy and epis- temology occur.

Thomas Kuhn publishes landmark work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Richard Lanigan introduces the field to important philosophical concepts, particularly

phenomenology, later to evolve into the field of philosophy of communication. Umberto Maturana and Francisco Verela publish first works on autopoiesis, or self-defining systems, later to impact the study of the cybernetics of knowing.

Interest in nonverbal communication increases.

Canadian linguist Fernando Poyatos shows the relationship between written punctuation marks and paralinguistic characteristics. Fernando Poyatos also coins the term chronemics to capture the role of time in communication.

Critical theory focuses on language, discourse, and media.

The rise of the Birmingham school opens avenues for increased fan studies. Herbert Schiller publishes sharp critiques of U.S. media and cultural hegemony, calling attention of critical scholars to this form of imperialism. Jeremy Tunstall chronicles the global influence of U.S. media. Michael Halliday introduces critical linguistics, greatly influencing critical approaches to discourse analysis. Louis Althusser publishes his highly influential ideas about ideology and state apparatuses. Paulo Freire publishes Pedagogy of the Oppressed in English, giving rise to a more critical approach to communication education and critical theory.

Interpersonal communication becomes a major emphasis in the field.

Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor present social penetration theory, which influenced much thinking about relational development and disclosure. Roderick Hart and Don Burks describe rhetorical sensitivity as an ideal approach to framing messages in communication, later to be elaborated by a team of colleagues. Gregory Bateson publishes his landmark treatise Steps to an Ecology of Mind, providing a basis for decades of research on systemic and social approaches to relationships. Harold Kelley stimulates a huge line of work throughout the social sciences on attribution theory, which will come to influence the study of

lxiiiChronology

interpersonal communication in the following decades. Michael Argyle and his colleagues explore skilled interaction behavior. Milton Rokeach publishes The Nature of Human Values.

Gender and feminist studies rise in the communi- cation field.

Cheris Kramer (later Kramarae) introduces the idea that women’s and men’s language may be different, leading the way to genderlect theory. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell publishes her highly influential article on the rhetoric of women’s liberation, setting in motion a tradition of feminist rhetorical criticism. French feminism, later to influence U.S. feminist communication thought, begins to develop.

New methods of discourse and conversation analysis are developed.

H. Paul Grice produces his principle of cooperation and identifies conversational maxims, which provide a foundation for the ongoing tradition of conversation analysis.

Media theory expands.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann proposes a fresh approach to understanding public opinion known as the spiral of silence. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw’s agenda- setting theory elicits a decades-long interest in ways that the media and audiences shape the public agenda of important issues. George Gerbner begins research on cultural indicators, leading to fruitful investigations of media impacts on culture and the development of cultivation theory. The U.S. Surgeon General’s 1972 report on television violence stimulates much research interest in the effects of media violence.

Culture studies enter the picture.

Mary Pukui revives interest in ho‘oponopono, the traditional form of Native Hawaiian conflict resolution, increasing interest and inquiry into this thoroughly alternative form.

Clifford Geertz publishes influential works on the interpretation of cultures, impacting studies in communication and culture. Scholars such as Victor Turner and Richard Schechner highlight performance as integral to human experience, influencing the study of communication and culture. Andrea Rich and Arthur Smith (later Molefi Kete Asante) publish ground-breaking books on interracial communication.

New rhetorical methods continue to be developed.

Ernest Bormann builds on ideas from Robert Bales’s work on group communication and popularizes fantasy theme analysis, later to develop this into symbolic convergence theory. Phillip Wander and Steven Jenkins publish the foundational article on ideological rhetoric titled “Rhetoric, Society, and the Critical Response.”

Group influence is studied.

Irving Janis introduces the groupthink hypothesis.

The field of communication begins to look at human developmental issues.

Frank Dance and Carl Larson propose a speech theory of human communication.

1975 to 1979

Rules theory is introduced to the communication field.

W. Barnett Pearce, Vernon Cronen, and colleagues first propose coordinated management of meaning, a highly published and popular theory that will later go through several extensions. A doctoral honors seminar sponsored by the Speech Communication Association provides a springboard for a tradition of work on rules theory.

Empirical research and theory building on inter- personal processes rise markedly.

Charles Berger and colleagues publish first works on uncertainty reduction theory, which will

lxiv Chronology

influence several generations of interpersonal communication scholars and stimulate a whole tradition of related theory. Frank Millar and L. Edna Rogers begin a long tradition of research on relational control patterns. Jesse Delia and his colleagues begin developing the theory of constructivism and person-centered communication, which is to become a mainstay in the study of interpersonal communication. Howard Giles begins a program on speech accommodation, which leads to a fruitful 3-decade project and the development of communication accommodation theory. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson introduce politeness theory, which will become highly heuristic in stimulating much research in conversation, culture, and interpersonal relations. Nancy Rollins and Kathleen Bahr explore power in interpersonal relations. John Wiemann begins to theorize communication competence.

Attitude theory and persuasion research remain popular and influential.

Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen propose the theory of reasoned action to explain how attitudes are formed and how they in turn predict behavior.

Rhetorical methods continue to expand.

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson elaborate a contemporary version of genre theory in rhetorical studies.

Concerns for media culture and power relations continue.

Oliver Boyd-Barrett defines media imperialism in terms of the international flow of information and influence. James Lull, James Anderson, and others introduce ideas leading to social action media studies.

Investigations of the discourse of cultural commu- nities, including marginalized groups, receive increasing attention.

Michael Omi and Howard Winant introduce racial formation theory.

Anthropologists Edwin Ardener and Shirley Ardener propose muted group theory, which will have a major influence on feminist analyses of communication. Gerry Philipsen publishes “Speaking like a Man in Teamsterville,” sparking a tradition of communication ethnographies and leading to a cultural speech codes movement in communication theory. Derrick Bell introduces the first formal statement of critical race theory based on the influential writings of W. E. B. DuBois, Martin Luther King, Jr., César Chávez, and others.

Poststructuralism and the challenge to stable mean- ing emerge.

Jacques Derrida introduces deconstruction, questioning the stable meaning of words and texts and thereby no stability in being or self.

Organizational communication becomes an increasingly popular subject of theory.

John Van Maanen and Ed Schein introduce a model of organizational socialization. Karl Weick publishes his influential book, The Social Psychology of Organizing, which forwards the idea that organizing is an interactional process.

Work on communication apprehension begins.

James McCroskey and his colleagues begin a decades-long research program on social and communicative anxiety.

Postcolonialism is introduced.

Edward Said publishes Orientalism.

1980 to 1984

Nonverbal communication studies continue.

Adam Kendon studies relationship of gesture and speech.

Communication trait research explodes.

Dominic A. Infante and his colleagues publish initial work on argumentativeness, later expanding this work to include verbal aggressiveness and assertiveness.

lxvChronology

Donald J. Cegala and his colleagues begin to operationalize the concept of interaction involvement, based on ideas from Erving Goffman. Robert Norton summarizes his research and theory on communicator style in his monograph of the same name, identifying a major thematic area of interest in interpersonal communication.

European communication theory is “discovered” by North American communication scholars and begins to make a huge impact.

Translations of Mikhail Bakhtin’s works make his ideas, published during the 20th century, accessible in the English-speaking world. Habermas publishes The Theory of Communicative Action, which greatly influences critical communication theory. Scholars affiliated with science and technology studies, particularly Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law, begin to study science as symbolic production, leading to a line of work now known as actor–network theory. Stuart Hall broadens the popularity of British Cultural Studies among critical scholars.

Cognitive theory becomes a serious focus within communication.

John O. Greene first proposes action assembly theory, which will later influence thinking about cognitive processes in communication. Sandra Bem first proposes gender schema theory, paving the way for much research in gender and communication. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson publish their highly influential text Metaphors We Live By.

Media response theories continue to develop.

Lewis Donohew and Philip Palmgreen introduce their activation theory of communication exposure. Stanley Fish introduces the idea of interpretive communities in his classic Is There a Text in This Class, later to be applied to media communities by Janice Radway in Reading the Romance.

Organizational and group communication studies emerge as a major theoretical voice.

George Cheney and Philip Tompkins begin to explore rhetorical dimensions of organizational

communication, particularly control and identification. Michael Pacanowsky and Nick O’Donnell Trujillo introduce studies of organizational culture, opening great interest in this subject within the field of organizational communication. Dennis Gouran and Randy Hirokawa introduce functional group communication theory.

System theory exerts serious influence on the study of communication.

D. Lawrence Kincaid first proposes convergence theory, an application of cybernetics and information theory to meaning and human understanding.

A new era of electronic communication stimulates a flood of research and theory on new media.

William Gibson coins the term cyberspace in his novel Neuromancer, and the term stuck. Marvin Minsky introduces the term presence to capture the feeling of being transported to another location through telecommunications, a term later to be applied to all virtual environments.

Rules theory, popularized in the 1970s, becomes codified and well known in the field.

Susan B. Shimanoff publishes an influential book on rules theory, codifying the work done in this area to date.

Interpersonal communication studies intensify.

Sandra Petronio begins to develop and later to publish privacy management theory. Edward Jones and colleagues publish their influential theory of self-presentation. Brian Spitzberg, William Cupach, and others present theories of interpersonal communication competence.

New forms of public and media communication are explored.

Jane Mansbridge inspires a tradition of research on local nonadversarial democracy in her classic study of a Vermont town hall meeting. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s MacBride Commission first explores

lxvi Chronology

issues of media sovereignty, opening increased scholarship on media and globalization.

The study of environmental communication emerges.

Christine Oravec publishes a now-classic study of conservationism and preservationism in the Hetch- Hetchy controversy.

Feminist studies produce increasing insights about women and communication.

Janice Radway conducts ethnographic studies of women’s engagement with media.

1985 to 1989

Communication scholars first begin to explore the life span perspective.

Jon Nussbaum is the first communication scholar to articulate a life span perspective.

Critical communication theory intensifies its focus on oppressive arrangements, with special attention to particular groups.

Fan studies see a shift from a descriptive approach to emphasize the resistive and subversive status of fan communities. Donna Haraway applies Marxist standpoint theory to feminist thought leading to work in communication on feminist standpoint theory. Norman Fairclough introduces critical discourse analysis as a way of uncovering power and ideology in social relations. Tuen Van Dijk expands work on discourse analysis to expose the development of oppressive systems of meaning. Chicana feminist Gloria Anzaldúa creates the theory of borderlands about the Chicana experience, sparking scholarly interest about Mexican American women within the communication field. Peggy McIntosh forwards ideas about how privilege works, adding additional substance to feminist and critical thought. Gayatri Spivak, Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Trinh T. Minh-ha, and others address postcolonial feminism. Teresa de Lauretis introduces queer theory.

The concept of diaspora, originally used in regard to the Jewish people, is revived and applied to all peoples who are dispersed from their original lands. Raymie E. McKerrow codifies critical rhetoric in his well-known article “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis.”

Dual-processing models of cognition and persua- sive communication are developed.

Richard Petty and John Cacioppo publish elaboration likelihood theory, which will have a major influence on persuasion research and theory. Shelly Chaiken introduces the heuristic-systematic model of information processing.

Media choice and use continue as a popular theme in media theory.

Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant explain media choice in terms of maximizing pleasure and minimizing unpleasant stimuli, leading to the affect-dependent stimulus arrangement theory.

Culture studies and intercultural communication theory continue to mature.

Mary Jane Collier, Michael L. Hecht, and others begin to explore cultural identity formation, leading to a line of research and theory in this area. Guo-Ming Chen and his colleagues begin research and theory building on intercultural communication competence. Stella Ting-Toomey introduces face negotiation theory. Young Yun Kim first presents cross-cultural adaptation theory.

Serious theoretical attention is given to gender dif- ferences in communication.

Alice Eagly publishes gender role theory.

Behavioral-cognitive theories of interpersonal com- munication continue.

Judee K. Burgoon and her colleagues introduce expectancy violations theory.

Increasing attention is given to global communication.

Ulrich Beck proposes a critical paradigm on globalization.

lxviiChronology

1990 to 1994

Performance studies emerges as an important development in communication theory.

Dwight Conquergood takes a critical turn in the development of performance ethnography.

Studies of culture and community expand.

Min-Sun Kim and her colleagues introduce culture as an important factor in conversational constraints. Michael L. Hecht relates identity and culture. Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger introduce the concept of communities of practice. Mark Lawrence McPhail introduces complicity theory.

Discourse theory advances.

Margaret Wetherall and Jonathan Potter introduce positioning theory. Larry D. Browning raises awareness of lists as a legitimate and important form of discourse that can be researched and theorized. Frans van Eemeren, Rian Grootendorst, and their colleagues develop the pragma-dialectical approach to argument and argumentative conversation.

Modern-Postmodern debates dominate critical communication theory.

Kimberl Crenshaw introduces the idea of intersectionality, claiming that categories like race and gender cannot be homogenized and challenging essentialist notions of identity. Dana L. Cloud publishes her well-known critique of the materiality of discourse, sparking a lively debate on the nature of discourse and the material world.

Cognitive approaches to interpersonal communi- cation advance.

Austin S. Babrow introduces problematic integration theory. William Gudykunst introduces anxiety/uncertainty management theory.

Relational communication theory intensifies.

Daniel Canary and his colleagues publish initial works on relational maintenance.

New communications technologies give rise to the study of virtual relationships.

Howard Rheingold publishes his book Virtual Community, expanding the discussion of new technologies to digital cultures created in cyberspace. Joseph Walther introduces social information processing theory. Jan Van Dijk publishes The Network Society in Dutch, which would be translated into English later in the decade. Mark Poster announces the arrival of the second media age.

Group and organizational communication theory explores new directions.

Linda Putnam and Cynthia Stohl first articulate bona fide group theory. Stanley A. Deetz publishes his landmark book Democracy and Corporate Colonization of America, opening intense interest in power, domination, and resistance in organizations.

1995 to 1999

Traditional definitions of rhetoric are questioned.

Sonja Foss and Cindy L. Griffin introduce invitational rhetoric as an alternative to traditional notions of persuasion.

New developments in media bring about shifts in theoretical attention.

Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass introduce media equation theory, suggesting that people treat media as persons. Frank Biocca, Matthew Lombard, and others explore communication in virtual environments.

Interest in relationships and small groups continues.

Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara Montgomery first articulate the relational dialectics theory. John G. Oetzel introduces culture as a variable into group task work. Peter A. Andersen advances thinking on intimacy in his cognitive valence theory. In a well-known monograph, Charles Berger relates planning to ideas about communication goals.

lxviii Chronology

Judee K. Burgoon, Lesa Stern, and Leesa Dillman introduce interaction adaptation theory. David Buller and Judee K. Burgoon introduce interpersonal deception theory.

Critical attention to discourse continues.

Luk Van Lanagenhove and Rom Harré publish their foundational work on positioning theory. Kent Ono and John Sloop identify vernacular discourse as the object of critical rhetorical study. Raka Shome introduces postcolonialism to the communication field with the publication of her germinal essay on this subject. Thomas Nakayama and Robert Krizek introduce Whiteness theory.

2000 to 2008

Julie Yingling extends the relational-dialogical perspective to communication development across the life span. Norah E. Dunbar introduces advances in dyadic power theory. Fan studies moves toward a spectacle–performance paradigm that emphasized the everyday nature of fandom. James Taylor and associates develop a co-orientational approach to organizational communication, bringing a constitutive view of organizational communication to the fore and founding that theoretical perspective known as the Montréal School. James Price Dillard proposes a model of communication goals featuring goals, plans, and action.

Patricia Hill Collins integrates and publishes ideas about Black feminist epistemology. Guo-Ming Chen introduces Chinese harmony theory. Andrea Feenberg and Maria Bakardijeva, in separate studies, propose a constructivist critique of technology. Wallid Affifi and Judith Weiner first publish motivated information management theory. Leanne K. Knobloch and Denise Solomon begin to publish work on relational uncertainty. Michael J. Beatty, James McCroskey, and their colleagues put forward a biological approach to communication, which stands in opposition to many social theories in the field. Kwan Min Lee explains how people come to feel presence in virtual environments. Victoria DeGrazia, Jeremy Tunstall, and Mel van Elteren raise awareness of the Americanization of media. Jon Nussbaum and colleagues set forth a broad life span theory that integrates much work in this area and provides a possible umbrella for all communication theory. Karen Tracy advocates the study of ordinary communication practices through action-implicated discourse analysis. Deanna Fassett and John T. Warren bring together critical approaches to communication education and introduce the term critical communication pedagogy. Combining critical and constructivist ideas, Milton N. Campos proposes a theory of the ecology of meanings. Michael D. Slater summarizes work done to refocus media effects theory on reinforcing spirals.

1

ACCOMMODATION THEORY

Sociolinguistic research in the 1950s and 1960s had shown how people change the degree of for- mality of their language as a function of the social contexts in which they find themselves. This was explained in terms of social norms dictating lan- guage use. In other words, we should speak very softly and respectfully here, but we can be more boisterous and casual there. Communication (or speech) accommodation theory (CAT), while acknowledging such normative demands, was an attempt to move beyond these and toward a more dynamic framework underscoring the more com- plex sociopsychological dynamics involved in lan- guage use. More specifically, the theory provides a framework for understanding how and why people adapt their communication toward and away from others and the social consequences of doing so.

Spawning a robust literature over the past 40 years, CAT has been elaborated many times. Importantly, it has been revised regularly as a for- mal propositional structure that indicates the con- ditions likely to trigger certain accommodative moves, as well as the social effects that can ensue from these moves. In what follows, forms of accommodation—as well as the motives attending them—are introduced, as are some of the satellite models that sprang from the theory.

Accommodative Moves

CAT first emerged as a consequence of observing people shifting their dialects—and bilingual

speakers switching their languages—toward oth- ers they address on an everyday basis. Many times, these shifts, called convergences, come about so as to reduce significant social distances between the speakers. For example, speakers can shift their accents toward higher, as well as sometimes lower, prestige-sounding speakers, shifts called upward and downward convergence, respectively. In response, recipients might, or might not, recipro- cate, thereby resulting in symmetrical or asym- metrical patterns. Although these shifts could be strategic and consciously performed, other times participants may not have been consciously aware that such convergent activities had even occurred.

The driving force behind these convergent adjustments was initially construed in positive reinforcement terms. In other words, increasing one’s similarity with another’s communicative style would promote mutual liking—which research in fact confirmed. In this vein, CAT proposed that the more you admire or wish to gain the respect of an influential person, the more likely you are to con- verge toward that individual, assuming you have the communicative repertoire to enable this. While an abundance of accommodative moves is good for greasing the wheels of interactional success, there can be limits to this. Hence, CAT addresses notions of optimal magnitudes and rates of con- vergence in that social costs could be incurred by completely converging toward the communicative style of another (e.g., deliberately mimicking them in a potentially patronizing manner), and also doing so too swiftly.

As this discussion would suggest, relative social power became integral to the theory in the sense

2 Accommodation Theory

that it was people of lower status who converged more to people of higher status than vice versa as people of higher status controlled more social capital. Similarly, the process of immigrant accul- turation is, in large part, a communicative one: Immigrants converge to the dominant language of their new culture whereas members of the host community typically feel little need to accommo- date the various subordinate ethnic groups around them. Indeed, near nativelike proficiency in the host language can often be one of the strongest symbols that immigrants have assimilated to the new culture’s values, practices, and ideologies.

Nonaccommodative Moves

Not converging toward another individual or other group can signal that the speaker does not value the approval or respect of the other. Pre- dictably, nonconvergence would be unfavorably evaluated by recipients. After all, most of us do not appreciate it when we are not taken seriously or when we are not considered a worthy ally. That said, the attributions we make about why accom- modations and nonaccommodations occur can be critical in mediating our evaluative reactions to them. For instance, an American sojourner’s inabil- ity to speak or even pronounce the Welsh language could assuage any negative reactions associated with nonconvergence by most open-minded Welsh people.

The other side of the accommodative coin of convergence is, of course, divergence, and its abil- ity to explain these contrastive shifts provides CAT much of its theoretical bite. Hence, depend- ing on circumstances, speakers may diverge upwardly by sounding more sophisticated than their partner, for instance, while on other occa- sions, they may diverge downwardly and empha- size their contrastive cultural roots, regional origins, and so forth. Either way, these forms of divergence can increase perceived social distance as well as dissimilarities and are often consciously crafted for such purposes.

On the basis of social identity theory, divergence can often be conceived of as a strategy of social dif- ferentiation. In interethnic situations, diverging speakers are those who accentuate their in-group language style and do so when their ethnicities are salient within the situation and when they feel their

group is accorded an illegitimately low status by others. An example would be an African American adopting more Black Vernacular English when encountering an aloof (and possibly prejudiced) White speaker. Although in-group peers might applaud such divergent moves, recipients of it might not view it quite so positively. Indeed, some- times recipients can interpret divergences as person- ally directed when in fact they are actually intended to diverge from the group and not the individual.

Divergences can, however, fulfill other social and cognitive functions, as in the case of a speaker really slowing down in reaction to another talking way too quickly, and agitatedly so, about a topic he or she knows little about. Such a divergent reac- tion would be enacted in an attempt to calm the person down, thereby getting them to pace their utterances in a more measured fashion. Interes- tingly, CAT acknowledges the feasibility of blending convergences and divergences simultaneously, but at different communicative levels, in order to ful- fill complementary identity and social needs. For instance, a communicator might wish to be respect- ful to a workplace superior and hence converge on some linguistic and nonverbal levels (such as politeness and deference), yet also wish to empha- size his or her own cultural allegiance by diverging on others (e.g., in-group slang, pronunciations, and posture).

Elaborations on the Theory

CAT really began to blossom as a more general theory of language and communication when it stepped beyond the adaptive use of accents and languages to embracing different discourse styles and nonverbal practices (e.g., gait, smiling, and dress). In addition, the theory has been invoked beyond face-to-face interactions into the domain of electronic communications, such as e-mail, text messages, and voice mail, and has also been used to explain interpersonal and intergroup encounters within the family. Furthermore, convergence and divergence, called in the theory approximation strategies, have been conceived of as but two of the many ways in which people do or do not accom- modate. Attention now is also being paid to inter- pretability strategies, discourse management, and interpersonal control by taking into account the knowledge shared by the communicators and their

3Accommodation Theory

communicative needs and relative social statuses. Once again, though, speakers can be more or less accommodative. Underaccommodative individuals— that is, those who may talk more from their own idiosyncratic agendas and feelings—may be viewed as egotistic, insensitive, and uncaring.

Subsequently, CAT took on more of a subjectiv- ist twist. The insight here was that communicators accommodate not to where others are in any objectively measurable sense but rather to where they are believed to be. An example would be slowing down one’s speech rate for an older person who is stereotyped as somewhat incompetent (and erroneously so), simply because of advanced age. This tactic, sometimes intended to nurture, could also be conceived of as overaccommodation. In parallel fashion, and drawing on self-categorization theory, people sometimes diverge from a contras- tive out-group member and toward the linguistic prototype of what they believe is a typical-sounding in-group member. Speakers have, of course, widely different prototypes of what, say, an American should sound like, and hence divergences can manifest in very different forms. Indeed, miscar- ried convergences and divergences—albeit with positive intent—can be very potent forms of mis- communication. Put another way, effective accom- modation is really an integral component of communicative competence.

The larger-scale social conditions necessary to trigger communicative differentiations (e.g., high group vitality) led to the development of ethnolin- guistic identity theory, which in turn inspired the intergroup model of second language acquisition. The theoretical position holds that immigrants’ inability to master, or failure to accommodate, their host country’s dominant language could often be due to their desire to retain a strong and healthy vitality for their heritage language. Hence, what is typically attributed to learners’ cognitive incapaci- ties or to inadequacies of teacher or material could be more successfully defined as rugged cultural maintenance.

Satellite models emerged in other intergroup contexts as well, such as between people of differ- ent genders, physical abilities, and institutional roles and status (including medical specialties and in police–civilian interactions). Of prominence here was the development of the communication pre- dicament of aging model. This theoretical position

has fueled a large amount of work in communica- tion and aging and examined the ways in which accommodative acts, mediated by age stereotypes, can negatively impact older people’s somatic pro- cesses to the extent that they actually accelerate physical demise. In addition, the model implies that a highly accommodative family or network climate can contribute to life satisfaction and maybe even longevity.

Concluding Remarks

Gratifyingly, CAT has achieved some stature in influential communication theory texts as well as in other disciplines, and many of its propositions have received empirical support across an array of diverse languages, cultures, and applied settings. The theory, like most others, can still be developed and applied to new situations without falling prey to the temp- tation of moving beyond its explanatory boundar- ies. Hence important issues still face CAT: (a) Which kinds of linguistic and communicated features are, more precisely, accommodated? (b) What consti- tutes optimal levels of accommodation? (c) Why do those who have not accommodated to their new linguistic communities for years continue not to do so, despite manifold rewards for being heard to be vocally a part of this group? (d) Finally, a future challenge will be to theorize about, not only how sociopsychological processes mediate accommodative communications, but how accommodation mediates sociopsychological processes.

Howard Giles

See also Action Assembly Theory; Attribution Theory; Interaction Adaptation Theory; Intercultural Communication Theories; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Power, Interpersonal; Social Exchange Theory; Social Identity Theory

Further Readings

Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Giles, H. (2008). Accommodating translational research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 121–127.

4 Accounts and Account Giving

Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (Eds.). (1991). The contexts of accommodation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2006). Communication accommodation theory. In B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNT GIVING

Accounts help people explain or make sense of events when something out of the ordinary occurs. An account can range from a speech to a story to a single word or nonverbal expression. Much of the research in this area focuses on accounts as linguistic devices employed in response to evalua- tions by self or others; accounts are communicated following troublesome conduct in order to trans- form what might otherwise be viewed as offensive into something acceptable. Accounts perform what is called remedial work and are linked to theories of politeness, face, attribution, conflict escalation, and impression management.

Accounts are of particular relevance to commu- nication researchers, not only because they are firmly grounded in spoken and written discourse, but because the entire accounting process both enables and constrains present and future commu- nication possibilities. Accounts create and main- tain social order, they are used by people to influence one another, and they help people make sense of communication situations in particular and life in general. We account for our own failure events, but we also spend a great deal of time col- laboratively constructing events and meanings based on the accounts of others. Speculating as to why someone did something is a ubiquitous con- versation activity, whether in romantic relation- ships, in work settings, or around the family dinner table. In a very applied sense, the study of accounts may help individuals actively create better relation- ships in personal and professional contexts and be both better understood and more understanding. In their 1968 work, Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman noted that the giving and receiving of accounts can potentially repair what is perceived to be broken and restore a relationship in the face of

estrangement. Finally, people often focus on the construction of coherent identities and life stories in their narrative accounts when faced with trau- matic losses and relational endings.

To fully appreciate the research on accounts, it is helpful to understand the background and his- tory of research in accounts, to examine some of the empirical findings and typologies, and to look toward some of the promising new trends and directions in this line of inquiry.

Accounts in Conversation

The Account Episode

The interactional nature of accounts is clearly seen in the account episode. The account episode is initiated when someone recognizes a failure event (a violation of expectations or norms) that needs to be explained. The communication sequence is initi- ated by a verbal or nonverbal reproach, followed by the communication of an account and ulti- mately the evaluation of the account. Various researchers have focused on the types of accounts and their varying levels of politeness and prefera- bility, the interactivity between the nature and severity of the reproach and the type of account given, and the subsequent attributions of the account giver after the account episode.

Types of Accounts

Early research on accounts focused on neutral- izing offenses or performing remedial work, espe- cially in interpersonal contexts. Scott and Lyman originally proposed two forms of accounts: excuses and justifications. Excuses acknowledge the failure event, but the account giver claims that she or he is not responsible for the failure event. The excuse maker may appeal to an accident, a biological drive, or a scapegoat. Justifications acknowledge the failure event, and the account giver accepts some responsibility for his or her actions but claims that the actions were not harmful or that the actions actually resulted in positive outcomes. The justification may deny the injury or victim altogether, may minimize the harm that came from the action, may appeal to a higher loyalty, may condemn the condemner, or may rely on a sad tale to justify current behaviors. Some forms of justifi- cations are more credible and influential if they

5Accounts and Account Giving

appeal to the values shared by the hearer, fostering a loyalty to the organization or cause rather than the individual.

Later researchers added refusals and apologies to the typology, noting that account givers have more options than excuses and justifications. Refusals may rely on logical argument or physical evidence, as seen in Michael Cody and Margaret McLaughlin’s research on accounts used in traffic court, or refus- als may challenge the authority of the person seek- ing the account or the fundamental labeling of the behavior as a failure event. Further, a person may offer a refusal in the form of a denial.

Apologies or concessions acknowledge one’s responsibility for the failure event. The five ele- ments of a full apology most likely to result in successful remedial work in a relationship are (1) an expression of guilt or remorse; (2) clarification that one recognizes what the appropriate conduct would have been and acknowledges that negative sanctions apply for having committed the failure event; (3) rejection of the inappropriate conduct and disparagement of the bad self that misbehaved; (4) acknowledgment of the appropriate conduct and a promise to behave accordingly in the future; and (5) penance, restitution, or an offer to com- pensate the victim(s).

Politeness Theory

Early research on accounts suggested that apol- ogies were preferred speech acts for receivers, while justifications and denials were not. Apologies were seen as more polite and served to maintain positive face for hearers. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson note that politeness is expected and predicated on the notion of the “mutual vul- nerability of face.” That is, both individuals must cooperate to maintain face. People are generally more polite with powerful others who control resources or rewards, when the offense or goal is relatively serious, and when interacting with oth- ers who are socially distant. For example, people are often more polite with strangers and cowork- ers than with their own family members. In gen- eral, politeness theory predicted that concessions and full apologies would be received well because they communicate respect for the hearer and pose little or no threat to the hearer’s face. An excuse is considered the second-most-polite form because

face is maintained for the hearer (an acknowledg- ment is made that the failure event occurred) as well as the speaker (he or she did not intend for the action to take place or had no control over the causes leading to the failure event). Justifications rank third in politeness since the account giver must fundamentally disagree with the hearer’s per- ception of the situation, thereby failing to maintain the hearer’s face. Denials and refusals are consid- ered the least polite and are least preferred inter- personally since the hearer is challenged or proven wrong, threatening the hearer’s positive face, or feelings of worth, and negative face, or freedom from intrusion.

Politeness theory is further relevant because empirical research indicates that how one asks for an account influences the kind of account provided. Initially, research indicated a matching of reproach– account–evaluation sequences. Polite reproaches elicit polite accounts. Polite accounts, or mitigating accounts such as apologies and excuses, often conclude with a positive evaluation by the hearer. Less polite reproaches, also called aggravating reproaches, threaten one’s negative face and there- fore elicit more aggravating accounts:

You’re late again! Don’t tell me you couldn’t leave work at a reasonable time again!

I’m not late! You said you needed me here at 8:00 and here I am! (denial) Besides, who else is going to pay for your new garage if I don’t bring home that bonus! (justification)

While not all the empirical research supports the notion that polite reproaches elicit polite accounts, we do know that with few exceptions, aggravating reproaches lead to aggravating accounts. Aggravating reproaches tend to predict aggravating accounts, which tend to be rejected, which tends to result in conflict escalation.

The second application of politeness theory focuses on the way that accounts operate in per- forming remedial work in relationships. Apologies are generally thought to be more effective (followed by excuses, justifications, and last, denials) in neu- tralizing negative evaluations, reducing penalties, reducing the perceived seriousness of the offense, reducing anger and aggression, and helping resolve disputes. A substantial body of literature supports

6 Accounts and Account Giving

this notion of mitigating or polite accounts in con- trast with aggravating or less polite accounts, but much of this research involves a single-offense sce- nario in which severity is low and there are no legal ramifications. For long-term or stable, reoccurring offenses that harm others, such as ethnic prejudice and sexual harassment, or for situations such as accounting for infidelity, many excuses are far more aggravating than mitigating. For example, relying on an appeal to a biological drive, as in “boys will be boys,” or denying intent (“Yes, I did proposition her, but I didn’t mean to offend her—she should take it as a compliment!”) is received with incredu- lity or anger.

It is also important to point out that expecta- tions and forms of politeness may vary by culture. For example, while both Japanese and Americans generally prefer apologies, the second-most- preferred strategy for Japanese may be to say noth- ing. Other differences may include how elaborate, spontaneous, sincere, or relational apologies are in different cultural contexts. There are also differ- ences in reproach, account, and evaluation based on status and power.

Attributions and Credibility

When hearing a reproach, when hearing an account, when evaluating an account, or when evaluating the entire account episode, communica- tors are making a whole series of judgments about the other. Hearers are judging whether the causes of behavior are stable or unstable, internal or external, personal or impersonal, controllable or uncontrollable, and intentional or unintentional. Empirical research suggests that excuses citing causes that are unintentional, unstable, uncontrol- lable, and external are more effective in achieving interpersonal goals than excuses that cite inten- tional, stable, controllable, and internal causes. We would rather hear that our date is late because of traffic than because of a lack of regard for us.

Related to attribution theory is impression man- agement, or how individuals project a desirable and believable image and achieve particular goals through either assertive or defensive behaviors. Research indicates that accounts are most credible when they acknowledge both the gravity and the beliefs people hold about the situation at hand. Other research suggests that excuses may serve

account givers well in the short term, but at least in the workplace, excuses may lead to long-term attributions of being less competent and in control of one’s life. While excuses may initially get some- one “off the hook,” an overreliance on them may prove detrimental to long-term impressions of competence. Some early studies found that work- ers employing justifications (accepting responsibil- ity for one’s actions) and refusals were more likely to be judged as competent leaders than were work- ers relying on excuses.

In addition to the above findings regarding the correlation between an account giver and his or her public image, Deborah Dunn and Michael Cody demonstrated that an account giver also impacts the public image of others. In a study of sexual harassment accounts, the accused was able to significantly impact the public image of the accuser, relative to the account provided. Several projects have linked the communication of accounts to self-presentations, showing that account givers were perceived as more likable if they fully apolo- gized or used the “higher involvement” justifica- tion, or used a justification that showed a higher level of involvement, followed by excuses and jus- tifications that minimized harm. Those using deni- als or challenges to authority were considered unlikable. Account givers were rated as both “competent” workers and “dedicated” workers if they used a full apology, justified their actions, or used a “logical proof,” demonstrating their inno- cence. On the other hand, excuse givers (and indi- viduals communicating only a perfunctory apology) were perceived as weak or indecisive, especially if using the “appeal to accident” claim, and people employing excuses were generally rated as less dedicated and competent (compared with those using a full apology or a justification). Attributions of strength, power, and intimidation followed from challenging a reproacher’s authority or from using a denial.

New Directions

Most of the research done on accounts has focused on conversational events or hypothetical interper- sonal scenarios. Some of the new directions in accounts research include crisis communication, organizational communication, and narrative ther- apy. Research conducted in crisis communication

7Action Assembly Theory

and organizational contexts highlights the chal- lenge of communicating accounts to multiple audi- ences or stakeholders, which could also prove relevant in small groups and relational networks. New trends in narrative therapy indicate the power of accounts in narrating a coherent and healthy self.

Deborah Dunn

See also Attribution Theory; Conversation Analysis; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Impression Management; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Politeness Theory

Further Readings

Braaten, D. O., Cody, M. J., & Bell DeTienne, K. (1993). Account episodes in organizations: Remedial work and impression management. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 219–250.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dunn, D., & Cody, M. J. (2000). Account credibility and public image: Excuses, justifications, denials, and sexual harassment. Communication Monographs, 67, 372–391.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper & Row.

McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Read, S. J. (Eds.). (1992). Explaining one’s self to others: Reason giving in a social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schonbach, P. (1990). Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.

Sheer, V. C., & Weigold, M. F. (1995). Managing threats to identity: The accountability triangle and strategic accounting. Communication Research, 22, 592–611.

ACTION ASSEMBLY THEORY

Action assembly theory (AAT) is an approach to explicating the processes by which people produce verbal and nonverbal messages. The domain encompassed by verbal and nonverbal message production is obviously quite broad, and thus AAT

addresses issues such as the nature of conscious- ness, the processes that give rise to creativity in what people think and do, the link between thoughts and overt actions, the relationship between verbal and nonverbal components of behavior, and how people plan and edit what they say. AAT has been applied in investigating a range of phenomena, including the nature of the self- concept, the behavioral cues that accompany deception, communication skill and skill acquisi- tion, communication apprehension, and conditions that affect speech fluency. The theory is most closely associated with John Greene, his colleagues, and his students.

Every theory is developed within a matrix of assumptions, methods, research findings, and even other theories. It is useful, then, to examine key elements of the intellectual matrix in which a the- ory is embedded. In the case of AAT, four hierar- chically ordered, foundational influences are particularly noteworthy. At the most basic level, AAT reflects the commitments of science as a way of knowing (i.e., an emphasis on empiricism, inter- subjectivity, and rigor). Moving up one level, the particular branch of science reflected in the theory is that of cognitivism—explanation of behavior by recourse to descriptions of the mental states and processes that give rise to that behavior. Cognitive science itself encompasses a number of distinct philosophical and methodological approaches. The cognitive approach exemplified in AAT is pri- marily that of functionalism (i.e., inferring the nature of the mind from observed input–output regularities). At the fourth level of the hierarchy, the theory reflects the commitments of generative realism: the idea that people are simultaneously social, psychological, and physical beings and that theories of human behavior need to incorporate all three of these elements.

Just as one’s grasp of a theory is enhanced by understanding the assumptions and scholarly tradi- tions that it reflects, it is similarly useful to be able to locate a theory along a timeline of pertinent intel- lectual developments. Relevant to AAT, cognitive science emerged as the dominant approach in experimental psychology in the mid-1950s, partly as a result of growing recognition of the inadequa- cies of behaviorism. The assumptions and tech- niques of cognitivism were quickly assimilated by scholars studying linguistics and speech production,

8 Action Assembly Theory

but cognitive science was rather slow to gain a foot- hold in the field of communication proper. Not until the mid-1970s did scholars in the field begin to adopt a cognitive perspective in exploring com- munication processes. By the early 1980s, cognitiv- ism had become an important force in the field, but, with a few notable exceptions, this work was focused almost exclusively on input processing (e.g., message comprehension) rather than output processes (e.g., message production). In this con- text, in 1984, the first article on AAT appeared—a publication that subsequently received the National Communication Association’s Woolbert Award for seminal contributions to communication research. In 1997, “A Second Generation Action Assembly Theory” (AAT2) was published, and research and conceptual refinements in the AAT framework con- tinue to the present.

Key Aspects of the Theory

Pattern and Creativity

The particular form and substance of AAT was shaped by the intellectual traditions and assump- tions described in the introduction above, but the single most important idea from which the theory sprang is a very simple observation that had been around long before AAT was developed. This fun- damental idea is that all human behavior is both patterned and creative. In other words, a person’s behavior exhibits his or her characteristic ways of doing things—the topics the person talks about, what he or she has to say about them, the vocabu- lary used to say those things, ways of pronouncing those words, facial expressions and gestures that accompany his or her speech, and so on. At the same time that speech and nonverbal behavior reflect each person’s patterned ways of doing things, they are also always novel or creative: It turns out that we never exactly repeat ourselves, and even more importantly, we can use our pat- terned ways of thinking, speaking, and moving to create ideas, utterances, and actions that we have never produced before. In that simple observation lies the seed from which AAT grew: If behavior is both patterned and creative, then how can we understand where the patterned aspect of action comes from, and how can we understand how pat- terns give rise to novelty?

Mental Structures and Processes

As noted above, in keeping with a cognitive functionalist perspective, AAT attempts to explain behavior by specifying the nature of the mental structures and processes that give rise to that behavior. In the case of AAT, the fundamental question, again, is how to understand the pat- terned and creative property of human behavior. According to the theory, the patterned aspect of action arises from structures in long-term memory that have been acquired over the course of one’s lifetime. These memory structures, termed proce- dural records, are like tiny packets of information about what to do (i.e., action features) in particu- lar situations in order to accomplish specific objec- tives. So a person might have learned, for example, to say “I’m sorry” in an effort to undo the damage in a situation in which he or she hurt another’s feelings.

Three things about procedural records are important to note. First, the memory codes in which they are represented reflect a hierarchy of levels of abstraction. Some codes, such as the example of saying “I’m sorry,” are abstract (con- ceptual, languagelike). But other procedural records are expressed in codes that are far more basic than that. Some records, for example, consist of the motor-code memories that a person has acquired for walking, reaching and grasping, pro- nouncing the sound units of his or her native lan- guage, and swinging a golf club. An extension of the first point, the second is that a single proce- dural record does not represent all the information used to produce a behavior. People do not, for example, have one record that holds all the infor- mation they use to flick on a light switch or raise a glass of water to their lips; rather, even simple movements such as these reflect the combination of multiple action features. And in the same way, a person may have an abstract record that indicates the need to say “I’m sorry,” but to actually pro- duce that utterance, the person will have to rely on lower-level records for pronouncing those words. The third point is that people possess a very large number of procedural records. A conservative esti- mate might be that an adult possesses perhaps tens to hundreds of thousands of them.

In simplest terms, then, AAT holds that the pat- terned properties of behavior reflect the contents

9Action Assembly Theory

of procedural records held in long-term memory: Our behavior tends to reflect our own repertoire of ways of doing things. The creative character of behavior arises as a result of two processes by which the contents of procedural records are actu- ally used in producing action. The first of these, activation, is basically a selection process that serves to retrieve those records that are relevant to one’s goals and the situation, and the second, assembly, then integrates or combines activated action features to produce one’s unfolding behav- ior. In essence, we think and do new things when we assemble new configurations of action features. Just as a child might construct an endless variety of forts, towers, and walls out of the same small set of building blocks, communicators constantly are assembling new thoughts, utterances, and nonver- bal behaviors by combining novel configurations of action features.

The linchpin of AAT is the nature of the assembly process, which is described as coalition formation— combining action features that “fit” together, as, for example, when a high-level feature like the abstract notion to turn left meshes with motor-level features for turning the steering wheel and pressing the brake pedal. Activated action features that do not find their way into coalitions quickly decay and are not manifested in overt behavior. In contrast, those features that do mesh with others (a) stay activated longer, (b) are more likely to actually emerge in what a person says and does, and (c) are more likely to enter conscious awareness. The property of conscious awareness, in turn, brings to bear self-regulatory processes such as rehearsing, planning, problem solving, and editing.

The Nature of Message Behavior

From the perspective of AAT, human behavior is a complex, dynamic constellation of action fea- tures reflecting various hierarchically ordered rep- resentational codes. At any moment, only some coalitions will recruit motor-level features that per- mit them to be manifested in overt action; as a result, verbal and nonverbal behaviors reveal less than a person “means” (i.e., his or her momentary collection of coalitions). Conversely, because only a subset of coalitions is available to consciousness at any time, those same message behaviors will reveal more than the person “knows” (i.e., the

contents of phenomenal awareness). In contrast to standard goals–plans–action models of message behavior, AAT presents a picture of a much more rapid, chaotic, and disjointed system underlying message production. AAT is also distinguished from models of social skill that suggest that skilled behavior is the product of motivation and ability. AAT holds that people may be motivated to behave in socially appropriate and effective ways, and also possess requisite knowledge for doing so, and yet fail to act in an optimal way because of the nature of the activation and assembly processes.

Assembly Difficulties and Failures

A key point of emphasis in the various empirical and theoretical applications of AAT has been on situations in which people encounter difficulties in assembling action features. As might be expected, one effect of assembly problems is to slow message production. As a result, studies of the time course of message behavior have been an important part of the AAT research program. For example, sev- eral experiments have focused on the production of messages designed to accomplish multiple social goals. The general finding of these studies is that when one’s social goals are incompatible (e.g., con- veying a negative performance appraisal while showing support for the other), speech fluency is reduced. Another program of research, focused on skill acquisition, has examined patterns of improve- ment in speech fluency as a result of practice. An ongoing research program examines creative facility— individual differences in people’s ability to produce novel messages—in an effort to understand why some seem to be better than others at “thinking on their feet.”

John O. Greene

See also Cognitive Theories; Intrapersonal Communication Theories; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Scientific Approach

Further Readings

Greene, J. O. (1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory. Communication Monographs, 51, 289–306.

Greene, J. O. (1997). A second generation action assembly theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message

10 Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis

production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 151–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greene, J. O. (2007). Formulating and producing verbal and nonverbal messages: An action assembly theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 165–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greene, J. O. (2008). Action assembly theory: Forces of creation. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 23–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. O., & Graves, A. R. (2007). Cognitive models of message production. In D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. L. Monahan (Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 17–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ACTION-IMPLICATIVE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Action-implicative discourse analysis (AIDA), developed by Karen Tracy, is the methodological arm of grounded practical theory, an approach that sees the cultivating of communicative prac- tices as the desired end goal for research. Grounded practical theory, growing out of Robert Craig’s work on communication as a practical discipline, is similar to Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory. Like grounded theory, grounded practical theory begins on the ground, studying existing communi- cative practices. Unlike grounded theory, which builds explanatory social science theory, AIDA, with its grounded practical theory roots, works to reconstruct the problems, interaction strategies, and normative ideals of a practice so that partici- pants will be able to reflect in sophisticated ways about how to act.

AIDA is a theory–method hybrid that melds the analytic moves of discourse analysis—attending to situated talk and texts—with the goal of under- standing a practice. AIDA takes a rhetorical point of view, presuming that people can make reflective decisions about how to communicate in order to achieve or avoid certain outcomes. It is also a nor- mative approach, or one that has potential useful- ness as a guide for acting wisely.

AIDA focuses on communicative practices in institutional sites. At its core, practice can be thought of as a way of referring to activities that occur in specific places among specific kinds of people; practice is another way to refer to a speech event that participants take to frame a situation. Ordinary names given to practices often call up a constellation of site–people–purpose connections. School board meetings, departmental colloquia, and classroom discussions are examples of easily recognized practices related to educational settings. A practice can be taken as a unit of the social world for purposes of analysis. Communicative practices that AIDA has studied have included physician– patient consultations, school board meetings, law enforcement crisis negotiations, and routine busi- ness meetings. Since institutional practices involve multiple categories of people who are positioned differently within any practice, the problems of a practice will differ with participants’ positions.

As a kind of discourse analysis, AIDA begins by taping interaction and making a transcript of the talk involved in the practice. These two moves are the hallmark of any discourse analysis. In con- trast to conversation analysis, another discourse ap pro ach, AIDA has a strong ethnographic thread, which means that the researcher must have exten- sive knowledge about the routine actions and variation in the practice. This requires observation of the practice, including how participants talk with each other in the practice (the focal discourse) and how the practice is discussed or written about in relevant institutional documents.

A basic assumption of AIDA is that most com- municative practices are shaped by interactional dilemmas. In academic discussions, for instance, graduate students and faculty members want to appear intelligent but do not want to be seen as self-aggrandized and out to show off. In school boards, the meeting chair wants to move the meet- ing along so that decisions can get made but wants to do so in a way that ensures citizens feel they have had a fair chance to be heard. As a result of the dilemmas that are part of all practices, a nor- mative proposal about how participants ought to act needs to weigh the multiple goods to which a practice is committed.

At the level of discourse moves and strategies, AIDA seeks to name and describe the site-specific interaction techniques that reveal a practice’s

11Activation Theory of Information Exposure

problems and that participants use to manage these problems. In a public meeting, for instance, in which a school district was working on its policy regarding how gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans- gendered students were to be treated, the elected board members and citizen speakers spent several months arguing over whether the school district’s policy should state that it respected or valued diversity. The activity of arguing over words— usually characterized negatively—was found to be essential; it was deeply intermeshed with the activ- ity of managing the sensitive value differences that the policy needed to address. In seeking to address this dilemma, people in the public meetings repeat- edly found themselves advocating that certain wording changes were more than technical editing and were necessary to resolve value differences in the policy itself.

At the normative level of a practice, similar to critical discourse analytic approaches, AIDA is interested in addressing the question of how com- municative conduct ought to be done. A difference between the two approaches is that critical discourse analyses tend to focus on critique, exposing invisible practices of power and domination rooted in mac- rosocial inequities, whereas AIDA is interested in positive reconstructions of practices that propose how a practice ought to be conducted in ways that recognize the multiple, competing purposes that are part of most communicative practices.

A study of academic brown-bag occasions, for instance, forwarded a normative proposal about the importance of a dilemma faced by participants: to see intellectual discussion as a communicative activity that needed to take ideas seriously, which would include criticizing bad ideas, and at the same time to see the importance of honoring peo- ple, their relationships, and their feelings, keeping in mind the consequences if people felt humiliated. “Ideas matter and people count” was the proposed conduct norm for academic discussion. In addi- tion, the AIDA studies made visible the array of novel discourse strategies participants used to pur- sue this two-headed goal.

Karen Tracy

See also Conversation Analysis; Critical Discourse Analysis; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Ethnography of Communication; Facework Theories; Grounded Theory; Pragmatics

Further Readings

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248–272.

Tracy, K. (2005). Reconstructing communicative practices: Action-implicative discourse analysis. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 301–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tracy, K. (2008). Action-implicative discourse analysis: Theorizing communicative practices. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 149–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tracy, K., & Ashcraft, C. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 297–316.

ACTIVATION THEORY OF INFORMATION EXPOSURE

The activation theory of information exposure, developed by Lewis Donohew and Philip Palmgreen, explains individual differences in attention and continued exposure to mass and interpersonal messages. The theory treats mes- sages as sources of stimulation and holds that their success or failure to attract and hold listen- ers, viewers, or readers is a function of both cogni- tive and biologically based individual needs. Successful messages are those possessing enough novelty, movement, color, intensity, and other such formal features to generate a level of activa- tion that will maintain attention but not so high as to cause distraction. Persons with lower stimu- lation needs may turn away from stronger mes- sages and be attracted instead to messages with lower levels of stimulation. Messages may possess enhanced persuasive power when they are able to attract and hold attention long enough for the content to be processed.

In its early form, the theory relied primarily on the cognitive attraction experienced by message receivers and their conscious decisions about what information to view or read. It has evolved to include more emphasis on formal, nonverbal

12 Activation Theory of Information Exposure

features of message stimuli and out-of-awareness decisions to turn away from or stay exposed to certain information.

The theory has gone through a number of itera- tions since it was originally published in the 1980s. In one, Nancy Harrington, Derek Lane, and associ- ates expanded the model to include need for cogni- tion or thought, with John Caccioppo and Richard Petty’s need-for-cognition scale as the measure. In another, Rick Zimmerman and associates broad- ened the studies to include other measures of appetitive and inhibitory systems and impulsive decision making. Some of the most recent research involves pilot functional magnetic resonance imag- ing (fMRI) studies of brain responses to messages, which support the expectation that messages meet- ing novelty and sensation-generating criteria would generate arousal among higher risk takers in the more primal areas of the brain.

The activation theory of information exposure is deductive and nomological in nature. It is deductive in that it moves logically from general propositions to more specific ones. The theory is nomological in that it provides explanations of what causes the predicted responses across cases. The theory was developed in the tradition of use-inspired basic research, described as Pasteur’s quadrant, which begins with a real-life problem and development of a general theory to account for underlying causes. On the basis of this explanation, a remedy is devel- oped. In this instance, the problem was how to get people to expose themselves to information that could motivate them to accomplish a socially desirable goal such as becoming more competent citizens of a society. This entry explains the theory and provides a summary of supporting research.

Sensation Seeking and Message Exposure

A primary influence on the evolution of the theory has been the body of research on sensation seeking by Marvin Zuckerman and colleagues. Sensation seeking is a biologically based personality trait defined by Zuckerman as the tendency to seek varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experiences. Sensation seeking and sensation avoid- ance are thought to have developed as fundamen- tal survival behaviors for adaptation to dangerous

environments. Novel stimuli tend to alert the sys- tem for fight or flight, and the absence of such stimuli means safety, permitting relaxation and a turn to other activities. According to the develop- ers of the activation theory of information expo- sure, the stimuli may appear in the form of messages, which are more likely to be attended to by high-sensation seekers if they possess one or more of the unsafe, risky characteristics mentioned above.

In research, sensation seeking was treated as a correlate of underlying social, genetic, and neuro- biological forces that generate risky behavior. These forces involve the same neural substrate that mediates the rewarding effects of often-abused drugs, for example. These forces also mediate other individual differences possibly related to dif- ferences in the mesolimbic dopamine system of the brain. At this point, it is not known whether indi- viduals can accurately assess either their level of need or how well the source of stimulation satisfies that need. In fact, many of these actions may be carried out without the individual’s being con- sciously aware of them. Recent fMRI research described later in this entry indicates a possible role for more primitive areas of the brain.

The activation theory of information exposure holds that individuals have differing needs that determine how comfortable they are with activa- tion or stimulation, and these needs become a major force in exposure to messages. The theory posits that attention to a stimulus source—in this situation, a message—is in large part a function of how well the need for stimulation is met by the amount of stimulation provided by the message. In research on messages likely to reach high-sensation seekers, Donohew, Palmgreen, and associates found that these messages contained higher levels of one or more of the characteristics indicating a need for alertness. These were (a) novel, creative, or unusual; (b) complex; (c) intense, emotionally powerful, or physically arousing; (d) graphic or explicit; (e) somewhat ambiguous; (f) unconven- tional; (g) fast paced; or (h) suspenseful. Other messages possessing lower levels of these attributes are classified as having low sensation value. High- sensation-value messages have been found in later research to appeal to individuals who are greater risk takers, whereas the risk takers were not attracted to messages possessing only moderate

13Activation Theory of Information Exposure

levels of the characteristics. Lower risk takers paid greater attention to the more moderate messages.

A primary proposition deduced from the above is that if the level of arousal generated is too high or too low, individuals will not achieve or main- tain the sought-after state and will seek another source of stimulation, which could be another message. This could be accomplished with a click—or possibly many clicks—of the channel changer, which often appear to be made more or less automatically. A student listening to a lecture or a person reading a book might merely drift off into daydreaming. For high-sensation seekers in particular, messages are likely to be too boring if they do not provide considerable novelty, action, or other characteristics. This may also be true for low-sensation seekers but would occur at a lower level of sensation value. Certain very stimulating messages are far more likely to attract and hold the attention of high-sensation seekers but may be too threatening or otherwise repelling for lows. This is illustrated by the fact that high-sensation seekers tend to prefer scary movies far more than low- sensation seekers do. A second deduced proposi- tion is that if activation remains within an individual’s accepted range, that person is more likely to continue exposure to the message.

Research

Research involving the theory has been carried out by scholars in communication, psychology, and sociology, largely in the United States and Europe, studying prevention of drug abuse, risky sex, alco- hol abuse, and other health-threatening behaviors. Given the tendency of the high-sensation seekers to engage in risky behaviors such as starting to have sex at an early age, having more sex partners, hav- ing sex without protection, and engaging in greater drug use, these individuals have become primary targets in health campaigns. Research involving predictions from the activation theory has estab- lished that with messages and other interventions designed to meet higher needs for novelty and sensation, attention to health information can be increased and desired behavioral responses can be brought about. Indeed, intervention programs using media and interpersonal communication and guided by this theory in combination with an applied model known as Sensation Seeking

Targeting, developed by Donohew and Palmgreen, have been highly successful in altering such risky behavior. One of the applications for health cam- paigns that emerged from this finding was that campaigns did not need to include both types of messages. High-sensation-value campaigns could be designed to persuade the prime target audi- ences, and these same messages could serve to reinforce the low-sensation seekers as well.

However, early research on the model did not involve either sensation seeking or health behav- iors but rather responses to political information according to individual differences in cognitive and affective styles of information processing. Early on, however, the biological basis of the dif- ferences was suspected, and the sensation-seeking concept was adopted. Then came studies of mes- sage stimuli, leading to identification of character- istics of messages more attractive to high-sensation seekers and those more attractive to low-sensation seekers, as described earlier. This was followed by laboratory experiments in which messages possess- ing high- or low-sensation-value characteristics were shown on a television screen to high- and low-sensation seekers, and the amount of time spent with eyes on the screen was measured. It was discovered that high-sensation seekers tended to turn away from low-sensation-value messages, but low-sensation seekers tended to watch not only the latter but also almost as much of the high-sensation- value messages as high-sensation seekers did.

Although multiple studies were conducted with increasing levels of success, three in particular, car- ried out in two matched communities (Lexington, Kentucky, and Knoxville, Tennessee) and using controlled interrupted time series analysis, have offered the most convincing evidence in support of the activation theory in the service of persuasion campaigns. In the first, two televised antimari- juana campaigns were conducted in one city (Lexington) and, coinciding with the second cam- paign, in a comparison city (Knoxville). One hun- dred adolescents were interviewed each month in each city for 32 months—before, during, and after each campaign. All the campaigns significantly reversed upward developmental trends in mari- juana use among high-sensation seekers. Several months after the first Lexington campaign, there was a “wear-out” effect for the persuasive mes- sage: Marijuana use had again begun to rise.

14 Activity Theory

However, its use dropped again after the second campaign. Low-sensation seekers had low mari- juana use across the period of measurement, and no campaign effects were observed.

In the second campaign study, the antimari- juana component of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s national media campaign was evaluated in the two cities by means of the same methodology as in the first two cities’ study. Much of the campaign was declared a failure by the new drug czar, who called for more “hard-hitting” pub- lic service announcements (PSAs). The new PSAs came much closer to meeting criteria set out for high-sensation-value messages. These PSAs arrived in time for the final 6 months of the campaign and led to a dramatic reversal of use among high- sensation-seeking participants. Low-sensation seek- ers performed the same as in the previous study.

The third campaign was also conducted in Lexington and Knoxville but this time had as its goal a reduction of a number of specific risky sexual behaviors and the practice of specific safe- sex behaviors. Again, the approach was highly successful, even regarding a behavior that has been especially difficult to achieve: increased condom use among young adults, particularly those identi- fied as high in sensation seeking.

Study of differential brain responses to mes- sages drawing on the activation theory is in an early stage. An illustration of this work is a pilot study in which it was hypothesized that high- sensation seekers might attend more to the mes- sages because they are biologically predisposed to show a greater response to visually presented arousal stimuli. In this instance, the messages were in the form of photographs. Researchers conducted fMRI with signals enhanced in the measurement of subcortical regions of the brain, including the hip- pocampus, nucleus accumbens, and amygdala. Research participants classified as high- or low- sensation seekers according to established criteria were given an emotional induction task, and brain images were collected while the participants viewed photographs, with half of the pictures classified as high arousal and half as low arousal in an estab- lished psychophysiological stimulus set known as the International Affective Picture Set. The most important finding was that limbic structures were more extensively activated in high-sensation seek- ers than in low-sensation seekers, with the left

medial orbitofrontal cortex (in the front or more advanced part of the brain) activated for both highs and lows and the right amygdala and right insula (in the rear or more primitive part of the brain) more extensively activated in the highs. This finding lends tentative support to the proposition that differences in exposure to information stimuli have a biological basis and have as yet unstudied implications for the human attention process.

Lewis Donohew

See also Communibiology; Health Communication Theories; Media Effects Theories; Trait Theory

Further Readings

Donohew, L. (2006). Media, sensation seeking, and prevention. In M. Vollrath (Ed.), Handbook of personality and health (pp. 299–314). London: Wiley.

Donohew, L., Lorch, E. P., & Palmgreen, P. (1998). Applications of a theoretic model of information exposure to health interventions. Human Communication Research, 24, 454–468.

Donohew, L., Zimmerman, R., Cupp, P., Novak, S., Colon, S., & Abell, R. (2000). Sensation seeking, impulsive decision-making, and risky sex: Implications for risk-taking and design of interventions. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1079–1091.

Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Lorch, E. P., Hoyle, R. H., & Stephenson, M. T. (2001). Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests of sensation seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 292–296.

Stephenson, M. T. (2003). Examining adolescents’ responses to antimarijuana PSAs. Human Communication Research, 29, 343–369.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

ACTIVITY THEORY

Activity theory is a psychological theory whose foundation was laid down by the Russian psy- chologist Lev S. Vygotsky. It has its roots in the Marxist concept of praxis—the dialectical connec- tion of ideal and practical material activity.

15Activity Theory

Humans generally carry out activities ideally (symbolically) before they carry them out materi- ally (concretely). Planning thus avoids, or at least mitigates, the dangers and pitfalls that inhere in straightforward trial-and-error activity. The sym- bolic activity, as one pole of praxis, can occur completely on the internal plane, as when a speaker plans what to say in a conversation, or it can take place externally, as when an architect uses a computer to develop plans for a skyscraper. An important aspect of the ideal pole of praxis is that it takes account of the conditions of practical material activity. Speakers are sensitive to the con- straints of language, and the architect considers physical forces of nature (e.g., gravity and load- bearing properties of building materials).

Vygotsky proposed that the basic unit of analy- sis of mind is word meaning. This entails far more than simple reference, whereby a word such as apple references a particular object. It also reflects an abstract concept that allows us to reference linguistically (i.e., symbolically) such objects regardless of their specific features (e.g., size, color, content) and to link these to other concepts (e.g., orange, fruit, nutrition). In addition, words create categories that mediate our thoughts and actions even though the categories themselves may not actually exist in the material world. The English word fruit, for example, is a generalization that references no single concrete object that exists in the absence of the word itself. Things called apples, oranges, and pears exist, but not fruit. The fact that English, and other, though certainly not all, languages, use the category fruit means that speak- ers of these languages think and therefore act through the generalized category—for instance, when medical experts extol the health merits of eating fruit. What is consumed, however, is not fruit per se, but apples, oranges, or pears.

The explanatory principle that Vygotsky pro- posed to account for the origin and function of mind is activity. Although he laid the foundation for the theory, he did not fully flesh it out. This task was taken up by Vygotsky’s colleague, A. N. Leontiev. (Some contemporary scholars have moved the theory in directions that diverge from Vygotsky’s original and Leontiev’s expanded notion of the con- cept and that background its psychological implica- tions.) Mind, or more appropriately consciousness in Vygotsky’s theory, is the ideal representation of

activity interacting with an external object. The object can be a thing, a person, or an event. Importantly, included in the individual’s representa- tion of the activity is the attitude of others that emerges through social interaction. This is because individual consciousness results from the internal- ization of the meanings made available as the indi- vidual participates in socially organized and goal-directed collective activity aimed at transform- ing the natural world into a cultural, or humanized, world (e.g., transforming a piece of wood into a chair). The activity is mediated primarily through spoken (and written) communication. To commu- nicate is to take account of not only one’s own point of view but also that of others, including the objects they attend to and how they attend to and what they do in relation to these objects. In this way, our consciousness is imbued with representa- tions of the needs, interests, and positions of others who participate in our social activity. In essence, we are first and foremost social individuals, but through social activity, we become psychological individu- als. In other words, the inner plane of conscious- ness is created as we internalize the meanings that arise in and through social activity.

Leontiev proposed a unified theory of activity comprised of three distinct, though integrated, com- ponents: activity, action, and operation. Al though the general theory is referred to as activity theory, one of its three components is characterized as activity, which, on the ideal plane, corresponds to the motive or driving force of activity. The motive arises from crystallization of a (biological or social) need (e.g., hunger, shelter, learning, labor, accumu- lation of wealth). Action corresponds to the mate- rial goal toward which an activity is directed. Operation refers to the concrete conditions under which an activity is carried out.

Consider first the case of a working-class family of four with an annual income of $50,000 whose members wish to satisfy the basic human need for shelter. They have a few options for meeting the need, including renting an apartment or purchas- ing a house. If they decide on the latter option, their need then coalesces into a motive, which drives their search for an appropriate abode. However, the motive is impacted by such condi- tions as the range of houses they have access to, given their income. The factors that come into play are size, amenities, location, taxes, insurance costs,

16 Actor–Network Theory

and mortgage rate. Consequently, the goal of their search then becomes a concrete object constrained by the motive.

Next, consider the case of a family whose annual income exceeds $1 million and whose members also wish to satisfy the need for shelter. They are not constrained by the same conditions as the previous family, although nothing in principle would prevent them from purchasing the same type of house. As a result, their motive is likely shaped not only by their need for shelter but also by the socially influenced need to display their wealth. Thus, factors such as size, amenities, loca- tion, taxes, and the like will play out very differ- ently in this case. For one thing, on the American scene, location and taxes play a major role in deter- mining the quality of schools that children attend, which in turn impacts the odds of the children attending university. Even though both families are searching for a house, they are engaged in different activities, given that the search is driven by differ- ent motives and conditions. The ideal concept house that guides the concrete search action is quite different in each case. For one family, it is constrained by low cost, modest size, and lack of upscale amenities, and it most likely does not include concern for the quality of schools the chil- dren will attend. For the other, the concept entails high price, upscale amenities, ostentatious size, and concern over school quality. Thus, the families have divergent concepts of house, which means they talk, think, and act accordingly with regard to the object. Activity theory explains the difference.

James P. Lantolf

See also Cognitive Theories; Language and Communication; Marxist Theory; Reasoned Action Theory; Social Construction of Reality; Social Interaction Theories

Further Readings

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.

Rieber, R. W., & Carton, A. S. (Eds.). (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (including thinking and speech). New York: Plenum Press.

ACTOR–NETWORK THEORY

Actor–network theory (ANT), also known as soci- ology of translation, is a theory initially developed by science and technology studies scholars— notably Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, and John Law—to account for the hybrid and plural nature of scientific work. Instead of starting from culture and society or, conversely, from nature and tech- nology to explain the production of scientific knowledge, ANT scholars proposed from the 1980s to develop what they call a performative view of the production of science, a view that takes into account not only what scientists accom- plish in their laboratory or fieldwork but also what nonhumans do, whether they be machines, texts, or even objects of study.

Accounting for the logic of scientific work is impossible, ANT scholars contend, if we do not acknowledge the difference that sensors, graphs, or samples make, for instance in the development of scientific practices. Symmetrically, they contend that political agendas and strategic alliances also make a difference in the unfolding of such prac- tices. As scholars, we therefore do not have to choose between two starting points—nature or technology versus society or culture—to explain given practices; we have, on the contrary, to start from these practices themselves to explain the pro- duction of nature, technology, culture, and society.

Although this perspective could have remained limited to science and technology studies, it quickly became quite influential in many different disci- plines, such as geography, philosophy, anthropol- ogy, organizational studies, and communication, to name just a few. In communication studies, this approach was especially introduced through the work of representatives of the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, constituted around the work of James R. Taylor. According to this perspective, an organization, as any collective, should never be considered the starting point of our studies and reflection but should rather be understood as the product of communication activities. This bottom-up approach thus proposes to study the organizing properties of communica- tion by analyzing various interactional and textual activities that literally constitute what we call an organization. An organization, according to this

17Actor–Network Theory

approach, should be considered as literally filled with agencies in interaction, whether these agen- cies are procedures, managers, computers, archi- tectural elements, workers, or machines.

Several key concepts have been developed over the years to account for the constitution of the hybrid and plural world we live in. One of the most important is spokesperson, or macroactor, in that it shows how a given (human or nonhuman) actor can become a network (and vice versa); hence the expression actor–network. Acting and/ or speaking in the name of, on behalf of, and/or in the stead of something or someone else, that is, macroacting, is indeed the main way by which col- lectives or networks are constituted. Once an agent is recognized and acknowledged as acting or speaking in the name of others, whether they are a collection of individuals (a we) or a collective (an it), these others can be said not only to have an identity—they start to exist as a we or as an entity, an it—but also to act from a distance, that is, to tele-act or telecommunicate.

For instance, when French diplomats meet their U.S. counterparts in official settings, it is not only they who talk to each other but also the respective countries they each represent and even, to a certain extent, the citizens of these two countries. If these representatives are recognized as speaking and act- ing on behalf of their respective countries and con- stituents, their voices become France’s and the United States’ voices, as well as the voices of the French and of the Americans. As can be seen in this example, and it is another distinguishing feature of ANT, we do not need to choose between so-called macro- and microperspectives, given that this illus- tration shows how one country can talk to another without leaving the terra firma of interaction. What France and the United States are and do can be defined only through who and what their spokes- persons and “spokesobjects” are and do in their name. In other words, both are performed into being each time representatives are interactively acknowledged as acting and speaking for them.

Another key concept developed by ANT is trans- lation. Using the same illustration, one could notice that these diplomats are supposed to not only incarnate or represent—that is, make present— their respective country’s interests but also translate them. Translation implies transforma- tion, which means that translating requires, by

definition, that the result of this operation be sanc- tioned (positively or negatively). Do the constitu- ents or president recognize themselves in these talks? Are the diplomats faithfully translating their interests? This is a question that any activity of representation and/or translation implies. Interestingly enough, translation can be used to account not only for political representation but also for any kind of activity or practice (whether scientific, technological, or cultural).

For instance, a traffic light installed in a busy intersection is supposed to technically translate an injunction to stop or go at regular intervals of time. From the administrative body that authorized this device through the engineers who designed it to the workers who actually installed the lights, a series of translations took place that made this traffic regulation possible. ANT is precisely interested in all these activities of translation that involve the filling in of forms, the designing of plans, the mobi- lization of machines, all partaking in the unfolding and tracing of an organized and collective activity.

What makes this approach especially interesting to communication scholars is that any act of com- munication can be understood as an activity of translation. Whenever people talk or write to each other, what is said is supposed to translate what is meant by the interlocutors, but what is meant always implies a form of implicit or explicit sanc- tion that is displayed physically in the turns of talk (especially through the presence or absence of con- versational repairs, or corrections, as shown by conversation analysts). Through the detailed study of interaction, one can also retrace what or who is made present in a given discussion, whether under the form of collectives, ideologies, passions, principles, attitudes, or emotions. Thanks to this approach, one can show how our world is literally performed into being through interaction.

François Cooren

See also Conversation Analysis; Ethnomethodology; Organizational Communication Theories; Organizational Co-Orientation Theory; Performance Theories; Semiotics and Semiology

Further Readings

Cooren, F. (2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies. In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van

18 Advertising Theories

Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 81–100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. London: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ADVERTISING THEORIES

Since the early 1900s, scholars have attempted to discern whether advertising has its own distinctive theories because it seemed that any serious profes- sion should draw from a systematic analysis of its trade rather than from chance or instinct. With U.S. advertising expenditures at about $149 bil- lion in 2007 (about 1.1% of the total U.S. gross domestic product), there is no doubt that advertis- ing can be looked at as a serious industry. Yet when Walter Dill Scott, director of the Psychological Laboratory of Northwestern University, conducted his research in 1903 for his work on advertising theories, he could not find any reference to a the- ory other than psychological approaches. Even more contemporary works, such as the well- known title How Advertising Works, still describe the advertising process as a strategic communica- tion procedure whose function is to create a psy- chological (and subsequently behavioral) change in a potential consumer of a product, service, or idea. Thus, when we talk about advertising theo- ries, we basically talk about theories of consumer psychology.

Lacking its own theories but operating at the intersection of business and social sciences, adver- tising has not only borrowed from these disciplines but often attracted these disciplines to engage with it and explain the advertising process and its suc- cess with their own models and theories. In gen- eral, the major influence of advertising seems to occur in the area of consumer perception of a brand. To that extent, advertising must understand the meaning an object has over the life of a con- sumer, as well as the limits of these cultural defini- tions, before trying to amplify this object into a

brand. Irving White provided a fitting example with the social values implied by the concept of perfume. Given that this concept invokes ideas of femininity for many individuals in the U.S. culture, advertising of male cosmetics has to carefully side- step beliefs about femininity and narcissism. At the same time, this example illustrates how conceptual valuations of an object or idea—ideas, beliefs, feel- ings, and actions expressed by members of a culture—can shift over time. Today’s brand adver- tising of male-oriented cosmetic products is differ- ent from that of just 20 or 30 years ago for the very reason that perceptions of men using perfume have changed.

The idea of how people come to understand and relate to artifacts is of interest to social psychology and anthropology. As thinkers such as George Herbert Mead and Jean Piaget have indicated, the relationship between objects and users is dynamic; as individuals acculturate into the larger society, they redefine their relationship to an object in accordance with the values frame of their environ- ment. Culture, in other words, fills a product with meaning based on biological, social, and psychic needs the product fulfills. In other words, consum- ers purchase not just the plain product but also the multitude of meanings associated with the prod- uct. The function of advertising is to create subcat- egories of values and needs within the social structure and to connect these with the product. Consumers then select those brands whose sets of implied experiences fit into the subgroup with which they identify.

With the growing globalization of brands in an emerging global marketplace, advertising increas- ingly takes (sub)cultural differences into account. The different social histories of Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world produce consumers who exhibit unique cultural characteristics that influ- ence their needs and wants, their methods of satis- fying them, and the messages to which they are most likely to respond. Failure to understand the cultural environment can lead to miscommunica- tion. Beginning to understand that words and symbols have specific meanings for consumers in a given culture, scholars in international advertising turned to the idea of cultural distance. Advertising studies now include the analyses of the meaning of verbal and nonverbal language, concepts of time and space, and cultural-values indicators such as

19Advertising Theories

individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term versus short- term orientation.

It is difficult to succinctly group theoretical approaches to advertising into neat categories since the literature on advertising is varied and is rooted in different premises. For instance, works focusing on the functional areas of advertising would group it by campaign creation, media place- ment, budgeting, and testing and measurement. Literature focusing on advertising processes would highlight rational and emotional theories of persuasion such as the elaboration likelihood model and conditioning theories. Literature focus- ing on advertising outcomes would categorize along persuasive components such as argument strategies, arousal strategies, and endorser strate- gies. Psychological process analyses would regard persuasion as one component of effects, along with attitude change and involvement. Finally, popular culture studies would analyze advertisements them- selves as an expression of symbolic structures that give significance and importance via subjective constructions and decoding procedures (e.g., pre- sentation of minorities and women, commercial- ism, group dynamics). In addition, the different approaches are highly interrelated and overlap- ping. For instance, affective and cognitive models populate all but one approach. Therefore, the most prevalent theories will be discussed here, acknowl- edging that many others exist.

Hierarchy-of-Effects Models

Originally developed in the personal-selling litera- ture, the hierarchy-of-effects model has undergone various modifications in its historical development such that today we use it in the plural form, indi- cating that competing models exist.

In 1898, St. Elmo Lewis proposed a stair-step hierarchical framework that theorized the necessity for salespeople to attract attention, interest, and desire in a logical sequence. By the later addition of action as a final step, this original model came to be known as action-implicative discourse analysis, which is still one of the most referred-to models in the advertising and sales literature. In the 1960s, Robert Lavidge and Gary Steiner challenged the immediate-sales argument of advertising effective- ness, arguing instead that advertising effects are

often long-term in nature and do not necessarily translate into sales (e.g., brand image building). They proposed seven steps consumers go through en route to the purchasing point: unawareness, awareness, knowledge, favorable attitude toward the product, favorable attitude toward the brand, desire and conviction, and actual purchase. At the same time, Russell Coney developed his model, known as defining advertising goals for measured advertising results, which stressed an awareness, comprehension, conviction, and action hierarchy. Coney reasoned that most advertising objectives were too vague for their effectiveness to be mea- sured with sales data and hence should be mea- sured with communication objectives.

While these models loosely touched on the cog- nition, affect, and conviction stages, psychological and sociological research addressing the consis- tency between attitudes and beliefs incorporated the described hierarchy of persuasive communica- tion into consumer behavior models. For example, William McGuire’s information processing model suggested that information first has to be pre- sented, then attended to, then comprehended, then yielded to, then retained, and finally acted on.

A serious challenge to the traditional hierarchy came in the 1970s from Michael Ray and his col- leagues, who argued that there are actually three different models that can explain audience responses. The first, the so-called learning model, puts cogni- tive understanding (thinking) first, before attitude development (feeling) and later action (behaving). This model most closely resembles the original models discussed above. A second model, known as dissonance-attribution hierarchy, suggests a rever- sal of the previous model, that is, consumers first behave or act, then develop feelings toward the brand as a result of their actions, and finally create cognitive arguments to support their behavior. Finally, as the result of research on repetition and slow learning processes in advertising, the third model, known as the low-involvement hierarchy, contends that consumers act, then learn as a result, and finally develop feelings and attitudes from the combined results of the behavior and learning.

Despite the ongoing modification attempts to its structure, the persistent attention given to the hier- archy of effects in advertising research attests to its continuing importance. Nevertheless, questions about the direction of research tied to this concept

20 Advertising Theories

remain. For instance, a result of challenges and subsequent debates about the “right” hierarchy has been a growing perception that advertising might be less powerful than originally thought and that its main contribution lies more in its reinforce- ment of an idea than in its original persuasive force. Moreover, hierarchy-of-effects models are theoretically weak as they are missing the motiva- tional mechanisms necessary to explain how to move individuals to the various stages in the mod- els. Finally, given the many influence factors pres- ent, advertising’s impact on sales seems to be less immediate and direct than originally assumed. One factor, for instance, is the concept of involvement, which has been considered by many as a crucial mediating variable in the sequential nature of the three main phases of the hierarchy of effects.

Audience Involvement

In response to the accepted position that persua- sive communication depends on active message processing, Herbert Krugman, in 1965, offered a thesis that linked message effectiveness with the audience’s degree or lack of personal involvement with the message. More specifically, Krugman understood involvement not as attention or inter- est but as connections that an audience member makes between the message stimuli and the mem- ber’s own life; Krugman distinguished between two types of involvement (high and low), both of which can lead to effective advertising. The argu- ment goes that a decrease in involvement does not increase resistance to the message but rather low- ers processing; that is, learning is passive as con- sumers do not connect the message with a personal want or need and hence learn information ran- domly as a result of repetitive message encounter. In high involvement, a message acts directly on modifying beliefs; in low involvement, the impact is rather on exposure to sensory appeals (e.g., brand logos). As the latter occurs more gradually, effectiveness requires repeated exposure. According to Krugman, there are only three levels of exposure in psychological terms: curiosity, recognition, and decision. Since many advertisers misunderstood his arguments as ideas about effective media plan- ning and placement, his thesis of a frequency of three subsequently became ensnared in debates about message repetition and recency effects.

Involvement also plays a pivotal role in Carolyn and Muzafer Sherif and colleagues’ work in social judgment theory. According to the theory, the level of ego involvement depends on whether the issue arouses an intense attitude. It further argues that individuals who are highly involved in an issue are more likely to evaluate all possible positions, therefore increasing their standpoint of unaccept- ability regarding the issue. Because discrepant positions are less tolerable when a person is highly involved, highly involved individuals will be harder to persuade than will uninvolved individuals. Uninvolved consumers are willing to consider more brands but less willing to evaluate brands. In short, lack of involvement leads to perception with little or no cognitive activity.

A third theory connected with involvement is the elaboration likelihood model, a framework developed by psychologists Richard Petty and John Cacioppo in 1981. This cognitive-process model derives its name from the likelihood that a person thinks deeply (elaborates) about an advertisement when exposed to it and is primarily concerned with changing the direction of attitudes through persua- sion. The basic premise of this model is that the route by which a message persuades consumers depends on their involvement with the message. Two routes exist: the central route and the periph- eral route. In the former, people have both the motivation and the ability to evaluate the message and will hence diligently process the message; that is, they will look for and respond to strong argu- ments in favor of the message and counter what they perceive as weak arguments. In the latter, people may lack the motivation or ability to evalu- ate the message and thus are more likely to respond to cues associated with the message, such as enter- tainment value or a celebrity spokesperson, rather than to cognitive arguments. In short, high involve- ment leads to central processing resembling tradi- tional hierarchy models, whereas low involvement leads to peripheral processing.

Important to note is that attitude change in terms of central processing is the result of thought- ful reflection on information. As such, change does not occur just as an outward compliance (behavior change) but indicates a change in beliefs (personal acceptance or a shift in values or opin- ion). This kind of change, then, is seen as fairly stable and resistant to counterarguments that may

21Advertising Theories

be encountered later. Attitude change in the peripheral route of processing, on the other hand, emanates from affective cues or social compliance. While it seems plausible to assume that this would lead to an unstable change process, this is not nec- essarily so. Empirical work based on the model has shown that people can internalize a message solely on the fact that it is socially and emotionally satisfying; that is, persuasion relies not necessarily on information and logic alone but also on social and affective factors.

Theories of Personality and Motivation

In the discussion of advertising strategy and con- sumer targeting, one central topic is the factors within the recipient of a message that render an advertising appeal successful; that is, how can mes- sages use an individual’s personality or motivation to create favorable brand attitudes and images? Individual factors include the reasonably stable patterns of emotions, motives, and behavior that distinguish one person from another. Personality is the key to adjustment. Similarly, most motivation theorists assume that motivation is involved in the performance of all learned responses; that is, a learned behavior will not occur unless it is ener- gized. The major question among psychologists, in general, is whether motivation is a primary or sec- ondary influence on behavior. That is, are changes in behavior better explained by principles of envi- ronmental influences, perception, memory, cogni- tive development, and emotion, or are concepts unique to motivation more pertinent?

Association Theories

Associationism in philosophy refers to the idea that mental processes operate by the association of one state with its successor states. The idea was first recorded in Plato and Aristotle, especially with regard to the succession of memories. Four principles define the core of the theory: (1) All ideas are associated together in the mind through experience; (2) all ideas can be reduced to a basic stock of simple ideas; (3) these simple ideas are elementary, unstructured sensations; and (4) sim- ple, additive rules are sufficient to predict the properties of complex ideas from the properties of the underlying simple ideas.

Association theory was advanced primarily by a succession of 18th- and 19th-century British phi- losophers, such as John Locke, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Many principles have been pro- posed to explain how ideas become associated with each other. These include contiguity (ideas formed close together in time), repetition (ideas that occur together repeatedly), recency (associa- tions formed recently are the easiest to remember), and vividness (the most vivid experiences form the strongest associative bonds). A closely related con- cept to associationism is behaviorism, whose prin- ciples of conditioning are based on the association of responses to stimuli.

The relevance of the above principles for adver- tising becomes evident when we consider that humans are able to associate with each other via symbolic bonds and thus have collective existences built on symbols that encapsulate shared memo- ries. Therefore, the aim of consumer advertising is to associate products with symbols that exemplify values, group identity, pleasure, achievement, and the like. Since brand names themselves carry asso- ciations, the idea of brand image is entirely based on association concepts as anything associated with a brand has the potential to affect its image.

Furthermore, brand image is often used as a heuristic for brand choice. On one hand, it saves cognitive energy (consumer as cognitive miser con- cept); on the other hand, it relieves or avoids inner tension or doubt about the choice (cognitive dis- sonance and loyalty concept). Since this choice is consequently purely one of likability and trust, advertising has to make sure of two things. First, it must create a likable and trustworthy association cue, such as a likable spokesperson, a positive emotional state (nostalgia, fun), or effective sym- bolism (patriotic signs, desirable lifestyles). Second, it must monitor consumers’ impression of these cues over time. The effect that, for instance, a celebrity spokesperson’s tarnished image can have on a brand (Martha Stewart and Kmart, Kobe Bryant and Nike) is an example of the close con- nection that is built in people’s minds.

Reversal Theory

Reversal theory is a theory of motivation and emo- tion. Unlike conventional trait theories, which mea- sure the amount and consistency of one’s behavior,

22 Affect-Dependent Theory of Stimulus Arrangements

reversal theory focuses on flexibility and what spurs reversals from one psychological state to another. The theory is organized into four domains of focus (means–end, rules, transactions, and rela- tionships). Each has two opposing motivational states. An individual reverses between states as situations—and the meaning one attributes to them—change. A person’s emotions result from whether one’s motives are being fulfilled or not. If they are, good emotions result; if they are not, nega- tive emotions emerge. The theory’s name comes from the idea that there is a frequent switching between the two modes. If we are bored, we seek excitement; if we are anxious, we seek relaxation.

Advertising applies these ideas in two ways: (1) It aims to understand the mental state that is con- ducive to positive brand associations in order to create targeted strategies (e.g., destination market- ing), and (2) it attempts to switch someone’s moti- vation in order to be able to reduce the number of valid arguments that need to be brought forth to influence someone (e.g., when in a positive, playful mood, people create fewer counterarguments).

Summary

Advertising is a complex and diverse field, and often even those involved with it have difficulty discerning what works and why. In 1976, Charles Ramond argued that advertising has no general theory that is widely accepted but forms a disci- pline in which a collection of pseudotheories exist whose reason for existence is introspection. While advertising typically uses information, the empha- sis in a persuasive advertising message is on influ- encing the receiver. Moreover, since the advent of the Internet and online marketing, the long-held notion of the mass market has given way to that of a more individualized consumer as digital consum- ers are no longer “passive” receivers of the adver- tiser’s message but will actively select the advertising message or completely disregard it. New theoreti- cal models are emerging to explain the many-to- many communication processes evolving.

Olaf H. Werder

See also Attitude Theory; Cognitive Theories; Elaboration Likelihood Theory; Emotion and Communication; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Social Judgment Theory

Further Readings

Barry, T. E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: An historical perspective. In J. H. Leigh & C. R. Martin Jr. (Eds.), Current issues and research in advertising (pp. 251–295). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Jones, J. P. (Ed.). (1998). How advertising works: The role of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Direct marketing on the Internet: An empirical assessment of consumer attitudes. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9(3), 21–32.

O’Shaughnessy, J., & O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2004). Persuasion in advertising. New York: Routledge.

Ramond, C. (1976). Advertising research: The state of the art. New York: Association of National Advertisers.

Ray, M. L. (1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy of effects. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for communication research (pp. 146–175). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sandage, C. H., & Fryburger, V. (Ed.). (1960). The role of advertising: A book of readings. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Scott, W. D. (1903). The theory of advertising. Boston: Small, Maynard.

Tellis, G. J. (2004). Effective advertising: Understanding when, how, and why advertising works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

AFFECT-DEPENDENT THEORY OF STIMULUS ARRANGEMENTS

Based on the core assumption that individuals are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain, the affect-dependent theory of stimulus arrange- ments of Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant can be applied to many communication contexts. However, in practice, applications of the theory have been used to explain how and why individu- als choose particular media content when faced with numerous alternatives. In our world of abun- dant, if not excessive, media options, the theory provides a parsimonious account of media choice based on individuals’ moods and emotional states. This entry describes fundamental assumptions, identifies four key predictor variables, and briefly notes recent theoretical developments.

The idea that individuals are hedonists forms the foundation of the affect-dependent theory of stimu- lus arrangements. This means that individuals will

23Affect-Dependent Theory of Stimulus Arrangements

actively arrange their surroundings in such a way that minimizes exposure to unpleasant stimuli while maximizing exposure to positive stimuli. The theory further assumes that individuals learn through a process of operant conditioning the types of environmental stimuli that best aid in accom- plishing this hedonistic objective. In other words, people come to associate exposure to mediated communication, particularly entertainment media, with positive outcomes —either relief from negative moods and other unpleasant stimuli or the enhance- ment of pleasurable experiences. The theory is broad enough, however, to allow that nonmediated experiences can also serve the hedonistic objective.

Research evidence in support of the theory relies mainly on preferences for entertainment media as the dependent variable and the initial emotional state of individuals as the crucial independent vari- able. These investigations have identified three message-related characteristics and one psycho- physiological factor that predict media choice: excitatory homeostasis, message–behavioral affin- ity, intervention potential, and hedonic valence.

Excitatory homeostasis refers to the notion that individuals prefer to experience a state of arousal that is neither over- nor understimulating. Thus, in the context of the theory, it is assumed that over- stimulated individuals will arrange their environ- ments so as to decrease their level of arousal, whereas individuals who are understimulated will do the opposite. By unobtrusively recording the tele- vision programs preferred by bored or stressed study participants, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann observed this tendency to seek out excit- atory homeostasis in a carefully controlled experi- ment. In that study, they found that bored participants selected arousing media content and avoided relax- ing fare when given the opportunity to do so. Conversely, participants who were manipulated to feel stressed opted to view relaxing programs for longer periods of time than bored individuals did.

The second key predictor of selective exposure to entertainment media is message–behavioral affinity. This variable refers to the degree of simi- larity between communication content and affec- tive state. A seminal study by Dolf Zillmann, Richard Hezel, and Norman Medoff tested the hypothesis that mood would dictate preferences for situation comedies, game shows, and action dramas on television. To a large degree their

predictions were supported, with one notable exception. Unexpectedly, participants who were placed in a bad mood did not opt for situation comedies, as predicted; they avoided such content. Subsequent analyses and follow-up studies showed that this behavior can be attributed to a motivation to avoid media content that is similar or related to a person’s negative emotional state. Thus, study participants who were insulted tended to avoid situation comedies that featured put-downs and other insults. Therefore, the theory assumes that individuals experiencing negative mood states will prefer messages with little behavioral affinity, whereas individuals in positive moods will tend to prefer messages with high behavioral affinity.

Researchers have also observed that media con- tent has varying ability to alter emotional states, primarily due to its capacity to disrupt mental rehearsal of thoughts related to specific moods. Thus, media essentially functions as a distracter by preventing individuals from dwelling on their cur- rent mood or feelings. This ability of media con- tent to engage cognitive processing resources is referred to as its intervention potential (some lit- erature also uses the term absorption potential or capacity). Messages with a high intervention poten- tial have the greatest potential to diminish the intensity of a mood, so long as the content in that message is not related to an individual’s emotional state. For example, in one study, viewing a game show effectively reduced anger in provoked indi- viduals whereas viewing an aggression-filled ice hockey match failed to do so. However, a nature film demonstrated little intervention potential for either provoked or nonprovoked participants.

The fourth key predictor is hedonic valence, which refers to the positive or negative quality of a media message. Media content that can be descri- bed as noxious, threatening, and distressing has a negative hedonic valence, but uplifting, amusing, happy, and reassuring media content has a positive hedonic valence. In general, individuals in negative moods prefer hedonically opposite media content, whereas positive moods will tend to motivate pref- erences for hedonically similar content.

Theoretically, these four factors are conceptually distinct and can be experimentally manipulated to ascertain their effects on media selections, but in practice it is not always possible to isolate each vari- able. For example, messages that are highly negative

24 Afrocentricity

or positive also tend to be inherently involving. Despite these difficulties, a large body of literature supports the basic assumptions of the affect- dependent theory of stimulus arrangements.

Recently, the theory has been expanded to include other concepts, namely, spontaneous and telic hedonism and informational utility. To date, the bulk of the research supporting the theory has investigated situations that explore the effects of prevailing moods on immediate selection of media– so-called spontaneous hedonism. However, at times individuals may opt to delay the immediate management of mood states in favor of other goals or needs. In such cases, their behavior may appear to be counterhedonistic in the short run but may conform to theoretical expectations at a later time. Telic hedonism refers to this type of behavior. The concept of information utility refers to situations in which individuals seek out information in order to reduce uncertainty. At present, only a handful of studies have explicitly incorporated these new con- cepts in experimental research.

John J. Davies

See also Cognitive Dissonance Theory; Emotion and Communication; Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Further Readings

Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and affect (pp. 147–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zillmann, D. (2000). Mood management in the context of selective exposure theory. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 23 (pp. 103–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Affect, mood, and emotion as determinants of selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 157–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

AFROCENTRICITY

Afrocentricity is a philosophical paradigm that emphasizes the centrality and agency of the

African person within a historical and cultural context. As such it is a rejection of the historic marginality and racial otherness often present in the ordinary paradigm of European racial domi- nation. What is more, Afrocentrists articulate a counterhegemonic or domination-resisting view that questions the application of epistemological ideas rooted in the cultural experiences of Europe to Africans or others as if these ideas were univer- sal principles. In this sense, Afrocentricity is a critique of domination that aggressively estab- lishes the agency of Africans in their own com- munication sphere. This critique may be discovered in the type of language, art forms, expressive styles, arguments, economics, or social ideas within an interactive situation. Thus, the Afrocentric idea is critical to any behavioral activity that involves Africans or people of African descent. One cannot very easily engage in communication study of Africans without some appreciation of the authen- tic voices of Africans. This implies, of course, a serious study of the deep structure of African philosophical thought.

Necessitated by the conditions of history that have removed Africans from their traditional cul- tural, expressive, philosophical, and religious base, the Afrocentric idea in communication seeks to reposition Africans in the center of their own his- torical experiences rather than on the margins of European experiences. In essence, two political situations removed Africans from their own terms. First, the enslavement of African people brought about a massive physical and cultural dislocation of millions of Africans. Such a large-scale move- ment did not have mere displacement implications but more profound implications for how Africans would communicate out of the new reality and what Africans would say about their new reality. Thus, it was both how and what that mattered in the process of communication among Africans in the Americas. The second political situation was the colonizing of the continent of Africa itself, which left people on the continent but already endan- gered in their cultural, psychological, and cogni- tive selves. Thus, the disassembly of African ideas, ideals, standards, and methods was fundamental to the making of both enslaved Africans and colo- nized Africans.

The Afrocentrist’s claim that Africans were removed from their own terms in expressive and

25Afrocentricity

religious ways is an existential claim based on the reality of the European slave trade and the impe- rial colonization of Africa. When Africans were forbidden to speak their own languages, to dress in their own clothes, and in some cases, to use their own names, they were in the midst of the turmoil of dislocation. Those who were also separated from their familiar physical and environmental contexts were further alienated from their own cultural terms.

The quest for Afrocentric location, that is, a place from which the African can view reality and phenomena associated with reality from the stand- point of Africans, is a liberating journey. One expe- riences the quest in the language of the best orators in the African American community. They are for- ever on the road to bringing into the arena of now the language and color of the African reality. Their voices, words, and cadences are those of Africans who are discovering their way back to the center of their own histories. Marginality is a place, but it is not a stable place from which to seek redefinition, relocation, and centering of one’s perspective.

This is a philosophical turn that is essential for conceptualizing Africans as subjects or agents within the communication process. If Africans are not subjects—empowered actors—in the situation, then the old patterns of marginality and peripher- ality are maintained; the interaction takes the form of one party taking an active role against another, more passive party, rather than subject-to-subject communication, in which both parties are agents who speak from the position of self-activation, of being in charge of one’s self. Consequently, if the subject-to-subject pattern does not adhere, then the communication cannot be authentic.

In its attempt to shift discourse about African phenomena from ideas founded in European con- structs to a more centered perspective, Afrocentricity announces itself as a form of antiracist, antipatri- archal, and antisexist ideology that is innovative, challenging, and capable of creating exciting ways to acquire and express knowledge. The denial of the exploitative expression of race, gender, and class often found in older ideas about knowledge is at once controversial and a part of the evolving process of developing a new way of thinking about knowledge. Afrocentricity confronts the marginality of Africans and critiques European patri archy and sexism as a part of the baggage of

the hegemonic tendencies frequently found in Western communication. Like the double ax of the African god Shango, Afrocentricity strikes going and com- ing. On one hand, it challenges African communi- cators to come from the margins of European reality and to claim their own centered space. On the other hand, in its emphasis on each person’s assuming agency and not being trampled on or victimized, Afrocentricity offers a liberating space for the struggle against all forms of oppression.

Origins

The origin of Afrocentricity as a concept is traced to a quartet of books written by Molefi Kete Asante between 1979 and 2008: Afrocentricity; The Afrocentric Idea; Kemet, Afrocentricity, and Knowledge; and An Afrocentric Manifesto. Ama Mazama’s The Afrocentric Paradigm and L’Imperatif Afrocentrique, which appeared in 2003 and 2005, respectively, added immensely to the theoretical and intellectual development of the theory. Afrocentricity became a discourse that thrust the concept of agency into the intellectual arena as a perspective whose core was the interpre- tation and explanation of phenomena from the standpoint of Africans as subjects rather than vic- tims or objects.

In order to return to an authentic consciousness rooted in self-respect, affirmation, and dignity, it was necessary for African people to see themselves in the midst of their own history and not as in the margins of Europe. Viewing oneself as an agent means also knowing one’s history. Someone who does not know his or her own history will speak with the wrong metaphors and appeal to inauthen- tic events and phenomena to make a communica- tion case.

The Afrocentrist believes that it is essential to return to the classical civilizations of Africa for necessary models of argument, construction, encounter, and ethics, in much the same way as Westerners had harkened back to the likes of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Thus, the return to a discussion of the ancient African civilizations of Egypt (2900 BCE to 330 BCE) and Nubia (750 BCE to 340 CE) during the classical periods was essen- tial for an appreciation of the role that Africans and Africa played in human behavior, communication, rhetoric, and world history.

26 Afrocentricity

Afrocentrists were the first to see the overthrow in the African’s mind of European domination by a return to classical Africa. Besides its acceptance of classical Africa, Afrocentricity was grounded in the historical reality of African people through the pre- sentation of key intellectual ideas. The point is that the Afrocentric idea in communication was not merely stuck in the fertile ground of ancient philoso- phies of Imhotep (2700 BCE), Ptahhotep (2414 BCE), Kagemni (2300 BCE), Merikare (1990 BCE), or Duauf (1340 BCE); rather the theorists saw these philosophers as departure positions, not destina- tions. They wrote on themes such as aging, books, the value of speaking well, and protocol. For exam- ple, it was important for the Afrocentrist to contend that the Eurocentric view had become an ethnocen- tric view, which elevated the European experience as universal and downgraded all others. For the Afrocentrist, it was clear that Afrocentricity was not the counterpoint to Eurocentricity but a particular perspective for analysis that did not seek to occupy all space and time, as Eurocentrism has often done. All human cultures must be centered, in fact, the subject of their own realities.

Key Points

In the Afrocentric view, the problem of location takes precedence over the topic or the data under consideration. Two methodological devices have emerged to assist in the construction of a new body of knowledge: reasonable plausibility, or believability based on careful consideration, and intelligent conclusion, or logical inference. Both are common terms used in a definite and precise sense to deal with the issue of historical, social, and cultural lacunae, or gaps, in many discourses on African people.

Afrocentrists contend that human beings cannot divest themselves of culture, whether participating in their own historical culture or that of some other group. A contradiction between history and perspective produces a kind of incongruity that is called decenteredness. Thus, when an African American speaks from the viewpoint of Europeans who came to the Americas on the Mayflower when Africans really came on slave ships, or when literary critics write of Africans as the Other, Afrocentrists claim that Africans are being periph- eralized within their own narrative.

Metaphor of Location

Metaphors of location and dislocation—being centered or decentered from events, situations, texts, buildings, dreams, and literary works—are the principal tools of analysis. To be centered is to be located as an agent instead of as the Other. Such a critical shift in thinking has involved the explana- tion of psychological misorientation and disorienta- tion, attitudes that affect Africans who consider themselves to be Europeans or who believe that it is impossible to be African and human. Severe forms of this psychological attitude have been labeled extreme misorientation by some Afrocentrists. Additional issues have been the influence of a cen- tered approach to education, particularly as it relates to the revision of the American educational curriculum. Hundreds of dissertations and numer- ous books and articles have been written extending the idea of Afrocentricity in communication, archi- tecture, social work, religion, politics, historical and cultural analysis, criminology, and philosophy.

Afrocentricity creates, among other things, a critique of human communication and social his- tory in the search for a unique standing place for agency. Such an action is at once a liberalizing and a liberating event, marking both the expansion of consciousness and the freeing of the mind from hegemonic thinking. Therefore, Afrocentric com- munication theory raises the bar for an authentic relationship of equals in which African people are no longer viewed in the traditional Western man- ner as victims and objects.

Molefi Kete Asante

See also Black Feminist Epistemology; Critical Race Theory; Critical Rhetoric; Critical Theory; Interracial Communication; Neocolonialism; Postcolonial Theory; Power and Power Relations; Privilege; Racial Formation Theory; Whiteness Theory

Further Readings

Asante, M. K. (1990). Kemet, Afrocentricity, and knowledge. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Asante, M. K. (1998). The Afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University.

Asante, M. K. (2003). Afrocentricity. Chicago: AAI Press. (Original work published 1980 by Amulefi Publishing, Buffalo, NY)

27Agency

Asante, M. K. (2008). An Afrocentric manifesto. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Conyers, J. L., Jr. (2003). Afrocentricity and the academy: Essays on theory and practice. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Mazama, A. (Ed.). (2003). The Afrocentric paradigm. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Mazama, A. (2004). L’imperatif afrocentrique. Paris: Editions Menaibuc.

Ziegler, D. (1995). Molefi Kete Asante and Afrocentricity: In praise and in criticism. Nashville, TN: Winston-Derek.

AGENCY

Agency is a concept that is generally understood as a capacity to act or cause change. The person who—or thing which—acts or causes change is termed an agent. In communication theory, agency is most commonly associated with people, as opposed to animals or things. To communicate, an agent must have the capacity, or agency, to do so. Consequently, most communication theories assume the existence of agency. Not all communi- cation theories, however, require agency to be human in origin. Until the late 20th century, agency was a relatively straightforward concept in communication studies. In light of human irratio- nality and evil in the past century, however, a number of scholars have called many assumptions about human agency into question.

Terminological Confusion

The notion of an agent and the capacity of agency are often confused or conflated with closely related, but nevertheless distinct, concepts. Chief among them are the subject, a philosophical con- cept that refers to a typical, or paradigm, self- conscious human being, and subjectivity, a concept that refers to the conscious awareness of oneself as a subject. Originally, being a subject meant that one was ruled by, or under the legal control of, a king or prince, but gradually the term came to denote one’s status as a citizen beholden to the laws of a given government or nation-state (e.g., “Josh is a subject of the United States”).

In philosophical circles, the subject has come to denote a perceiving human being who is conscious

of himself or herself as a human being. In this philosophical sense, the subject is discussed in rela- tion to the object, which refers to that which is perceived by the subject or that which the subject knows he or she is not. The philosophical distinc- tion between the subject and object as categories, however, is not stable, and the meaning can change from one context to the next. In psychoanalysis, for example, the subject denotes a self-conscious person, but the object denotes another person whom the subject loves, hates, is ambivalent about, and so on (e.g., the infant subject loves the mater- nal object, mother).

A subject who self-consciously acts or causes change is said to possess agency. Hence, a subject with agency is an agent. An agent does not neces- sarily need to be a subject, however, nor does a subject necessarily possess agency. To complicate matters, agency is often confused with the term subjectivity as well. Whereas the subject denotes a self-conscious person, subjectivity refers to con- sciousness of one’s perceptions as an individual or discrete subject. Consciousness of oneself as a dis- crete individual (subjectivity) does not mean that one has agency or is an agent. Only an awareness of one’s ability or capacity to act (subjectivity) imbues the subject with agency.

In sum, agency is the capacity to act; the agent is the source or location of agency; the subject is a self-conscious human being; and subjectivity is consciousness as a subject. All these concepts are implicated in the idea of communication.

Agency and Modern Philosophy

Contemporary understandings of agency can be linked to 18th-century Western thought, often termed the Enlightenment. Although Enlightenment thought is not easily summarized, key among its goals was the use of reason to improve society and understand the natural world. In Enlightenment thought, we find agency and the subject tied together in complex ways. For example, just prior to the Enlightenment, the philosopher René Descartes reasoned that absent any knowledge or sensory perception whatsoever, an individual could know one thing: It thinks, therefore it exists (this argument is known as the cogito). Insofar as think- ing is a type of action, this “it” that thinks is an agent, but it is not necessarily a subject. The it or

28 Agency

agent that thinks is not a subject until it is con- scious of itself as an agent who thinks (subjectiv- ity). The Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant extended Descartes’ argument about this most basic kernel of knowledge—something exists that is thinking or acting, and therefore agency and an agent exist. Yet self-conscious knowledge, he sug- gested, depends on exposure to the world outside our minds, or the empirical world. In other words, to be subjects, we have to have sensory experience. Subjectivity, consequently, is wholly “in our heads” but requires a confrontation with the external world. The resulting concept of the transcendental subject advanced by Kant consisted in both the necessity of a thinking thing independent of the outside world and the necessity of that outside world to make the thinking thing conscious of itself (subjectivity). For Kant, all knowledge subse- quent to fact of self-existence is impossible without sensory experience. The meaning of the external world, however, is entirely dependent on the way in which the human mind works. This view implies that the paradigm self-conscious human being, or subject, is destined to become an agent and thus harbors an incipient agency at birth.

After Kant, the concept of the subject emerged as the relatively stable notion of a self-conscious agent. Consequently, in the mature subject, agency was understood as the ability to cause change or act by making choices. In other words, the subject was believed to have agency because he or she could cause change by choosing among alternative actions. Insofar as choosing was a key characteris- tic of the agency of the modern subject, Enlight- enment thinkers associated agency with freedom and, by extension, individual autonomy: One became an autonomous subject by understanding and accepting his or her freedom, using reason to make choices.

Because of the influence of modern philosophy, agency became associated with self-transparency, self-knowledge, and rational choice making. Because choice making was understood as a com- ponent of human agency, today agency is often associated with matters of epistemology (how we come to knowledge), ethics (how we discern right from wrong), and politics (how we act collectively in the face of uncertain outcomes). In the social sciences, agency is also understood as a component of one’s self-perception as autonomous. Owing to

these associations, in educational settings giving agency to students is often expressed as a goal of teaching: By working with students on their com- munication stills, it is thought, communication educators can help students to better realize their agency and become social, moral, and political actors in the public sphere and in private life.

The Posthumanist Critique of Agency

The Enlightenment view of agency and subjectivity is classically humanist, meaning that it is party to a larger perspective on the world termed human- ism. In general, humanism is the view that human beings have a special status in the universe, a status that is superior to the supernatural or divine, on one hand, and a status that cannot be resigned to scientific naturalism or biologism, on the other. It is commonly assumed the humanist subject is an autonomous, self-transparent, fully conscious agent who acts rationally by making choices. In the 19th century, this view of the subject and agency was challenged by a number of thinkers. For example, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche argued that humans were motivated by the “will to power” and made choices that were typically self- interested. Karl Marx argued that human choices were constrained by material circumstances and frequently animated by the interests of those in power (ideology). Sigmund Freud argued that the choices of human subjects were often irrational and motivated by unconscious desires. Together, the critiques of the Enlightenment agency advanced by Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud laid the ground- work for what would come to be known as post- humanism, a view that would rigorously dispute human subjectivity as the seat of agency.

Although difficult to define, posthumanism is the idea that the human being is only one of many types of beings in the universe and, as such, has no special status or value (other than, of course, what human beings assign to themselves). More specifi- cally, in the theoretical humanities, posthumanism mounts a critique of the subject as self-transparent, autonomous, choice making, and rational. Understandably, if the human subject is not char- acterized by these qualities, then the Enlightenment notion of human agency as rational choice making is also questioned by posthumanism. Many 20th- century thinkers associated with posthumanism,

29Agency

such as Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Lacan, for example, would not deny that human agency consists of choices; they would question, however, the extent to which such choices were conscious or reasoned, arguing that they are constrained by larger forces such as language, ideology, social norms, the threat of imminent death, and so on.

The frequent rationale for questioning the fully conscious, rational, choice-making capacity of human subjects concerns world wars, torture, genocide, and other atrocities caused by human beings. For example, although it is unquestionably the case that many Nazi war criminals made con- scious decisions to do evil, it is also the case that many Nazi sympathizers aided and abetted such evil without consciously doing so. In the latter instance, the status of agency in the conduct of evil is unclear. Furthermore, insofar as human reason can be used toward evil ends (e.g., the rationally calculated extermination of millions of Jewish people during World War II), posthumanism questions the value once afforded to reason by Enlightenment thinkers.

Because the problem of evil poses complex questions about the character of agency without any clear answers, posthumanist thinkers prefer to leave the status of the human subject open, as if the concept of the subject is a question itself, never to be fully answered. Agency after the posthuman- ist critique in the theoretical humanities is thus disassociated from full consciousness, choice mak- ing, freedom, and autonomy, becoming a term for the capacity to act. The agent, in turn, can be any- thing that causes change or action.

Agency in Rhetorical Studies

Owing to the Enlightenment legacy of agency, scholars who study persuasive speaking and writ- ing (rhetoric) have traditionally taken the Enlightenment subject for granted. Since the days of Plato, Aristotle, and the ancient Greeks, rhetori- cians understood the persuasive process to involve speakers or writers who consciously developed their rhetoric by making conscious choices. A per- suader, or rhetor, would select a topic, then pro- ceed to outline an essay or speech, selecting some arguments and ignoring others. The rhetor would choose the appropriate language and tone of the

address, analyze the intended audience to help adapt to its expectations, and so on. These assump- tions about the persuader tend to assume a self- transparent, autonomous subject.

In the 20th century, however, the influence of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud on rhetorical studies began to shift focus from the agency of the rhetor to the active understanding of audiences (a psycho- logical move). The work of Kenneth Burke was particularly influential in this regard. Burke argued that persuasion was not the result of arguments offered by a rhetor but rather the result of identifi- cation, or the ability of persuader and “persuadee” to understand each other as sharing a common identity in some fundamental way (consubstantial- ity). Diane Davis has even suggested that Burke’s redefinition of persuasion leads us to the domain of the unconscious and the possibility that persuasion is akin to hypnosis. If this is the case, then agency in persuasive encounter is difficult to locate in any one individual as it is a shared, unconscious, and dynamic relation between two or more people.

Because of the posthumanist critique of human subjectivity, one finds a variety of positions on the concept of agency among rhetorical scholars at present. There is no consensus among them about what agency means; some would even dispute this summary. Very generally, these positions can be reduced to three: (1) rhetoricians who continue to defend the Enlightenment subject and agency as conscious choice making (humanistic agency), (2) rhetoricians who understand agency as a complex negotiation of conscious intent and structural limitation (dialectical agency), and (3) rhetori- cians who narrowly define agency as a capacity to act and the subject as an open question (posthu- manist agency).

Agency in Social Science

Among social-scientific scholars in communication studies, the concept of agency has been less contro- versial, and the literature is decidedly larger in volume and scope. In various theories of commu- nication from a scientific standpoint, agency is assumed to be the capacity to act and is usually associated with human subjects, as the preponder- ance of studies of communication concerns humans. Owing to centuries-old discussions in modern phi- losophy discussed above, much of the work in

30 Agency

social-scientific communication theory associates agency with autonomy. More specifically, agency in communication theory can be traced to social- scientific studies that investigate individuals’ self- perceptions of autonomy, control, and free choice in respect to a number of cognate concepts, includ- ing Piaget’s investigations of agency, Albert Bandura’s studies on the locus of control, and various explorations of attributional or explana- tory style. These and similar studies, in turn, are indebted to classical investigations by Jack Brehm on reactance and Erving Goffman’s theory of face- work: Brehm’s work investigated how subjects reacted to perceptions of constraint, and Goffman’s focused on the ways in which subjects tend to work to preserve perceptions of autonomy and respect for others.

Closely related to common understandings of agency in social science is the concept of power, and a number of studies in the area of social and management psychology have focused on how various power structures (social, cultural, eco- nomic, relational, etc.) influence one’s perception of agency and autonomy in interpersonal dynam- ics. This research overlaps with scholarship con- ducted in organizational communication studies. Because organizational environments often fore- ground a tension between the human subject and the housing institution, agency has been a fertile topic of discussion and debate: To what degree do organizational norms constrain the agency of the individual? To what degree do organizational structures empower an employee? Actor–network theory has been particularly influential among organizational scholars in answering these and related questions.

Finally, owing to the powerful role of nonhu- man structures on organizations, it stands to rea- son that the agency of nonhuman things is an important dynamic worthy of study. Although the idea of nonhuman agency has been operative of the fields of linguistics and sociology for decades, it has become a topic of concern in organizational communication studies only in the 21st century. In this respect, François Cooren and others have argued that nonhuman agencies, especially what Cooren terms textual agencies, are crucial for understanding organizational cultures.

Joshua Gunn

See also Actor–Network Theory; Axiology; Empiricism; Facework Theories; Ideology; Ontology; Postmodern Theory; Poststructuralism; Power and Power Relations; Pragmatics; Spectatorship

Further Readings

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Buchanan, G. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1997). Explanatory style. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Campbell, K. K. (2005). Agency: Promiscuous and protean. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 2, 1–19.

Castor, T., & Cooren, F. (2006). Organizations as hybrid forms of life: The implications of the selection of human and non-human agents in problem-formulation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 570–600.

Davis, D. (2008). Identification: Burke and Freud on who you are. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 38, 132–147.

Geisler, C. (2004). How ought we to understand the concept of rhetorical agency? Report from the ARS. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 34, 9–17.

Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 95, 111–127.

Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor network theory and after. Malden, MA: Oxford.

Lundberg, C., & Gunn, J. (2005). “Ouija board, are there any communications?” Agency, ontotheology, and the death of the humanist subject, or, continuing the ARS conversation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35, 83–105.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.

Thibault, P. J. (2006). Agency and consciousness in discourse: Self-other dynamics as a complex system. New York: Continuum.

Weick, M., & Guinote, A. (2008). When subjective experiences matter: Power increases reliance on the ease of retrieval. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94, 956–970.

Williams, C. (2001). Contemporary French philosophy: Modernity and the persistence of the subject. New York: Continuum.

31Agenda-Setting Theory

AGENDA-SETTING THEORY

Agenda-setting theory, as originally formulated in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, explains the relationships between the emphasis that the mass media place on issues and the importance that media audiences attribute to those issues. While agenda-setting theory started out as an explanation of media impact on political behavior and attitudes during election years— specifically, the ways that news media coverage can prioritize issues, or set the agenda, for the public—in the decades since McCombs and Shaw’s initial study was published, the theory has inspired hundreds of subsequent explorations into the ways that media and other institutions prime and frame issues and events for their audiences and therefore influence and shape public opinion, either intentionally or unintentionally. As a result, agenda-setting theory has had a profound influ- ence, not only on mass communication and politi- cal communication research, but also on the development of various organizational communi- cation, persuasion, and diffusion-of-innovations theories. At the same time, the original theory has been revised by Maxwell McCombs, one of its codevelopers, in ways that expand and even con- tradict one of its key tenets.

Early Days of Agenda-Setting Research

Although McCombs and Shaw were the first scholars to speak of an agenda-setting function of the mass media, the idea that media contribute to audience perceptions, values, and priorities pre- dates their study. Indeed, McCombs and Shaw used a famous quotation by political scientist Bernard Cohen as a way of encapsulating their own early conception of agenda setting. As Cohen had observed in 1963, the press “may not be suc- cessful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” In other words, the idea behind McCombs and Shaw’s original notion of agenda-setting theory is that while the media do not tell us what attitudes or opinions we should have (what to think) and do not set out to deliber- ately or purposely engineer public opinion, they do tell us which issues we should be focusing on

(what to think about)—that is, which issues are most important and therefore most worthy of inclusion on our mental agendas.

What was groundbreaking about their 1972 article, “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,” was that McCombs and Shaw provided empirical support for the claim that the news media priorities become public priorities. Their article detailed the results of a study they con- ducted during the 1968 presidential campaign in which they asked 100 registered yet uncommitted voters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a set of fairly simple questions: “What are you most con- cerned about these days? That is, regardless of what politicians say, what are the two or three main things which you think the government should concentrate on doing something about?” At the same time, McCombs and Shaw analyzed the political news contents of the mass media used by Chapel Hill voters during the campaign (four local newspapers, The New York Times, the news- magazines Time and Newsweek, and the NBC and CBS evening news broadcasts). McCombs and Shaw found an almost perfect correlation between the issues listed by the voters as most important and the topics that were given the most space, time, and prominence in the news media. Additionally, the priority order given by voters to the issues almost perfectly matched the relative amounts of time or space given by the media to coverage of those issues.

McCombs and Shaw concluded that there is a strong relationship between the emphasis placed on issues by the media (that is, the media agenda) and voters’ own judgments about the salience and importance of campaign issues (that is, the public agenda). The researchers suggested that this was a straightforward, one-way, causal relationship, meaning that we learn from the media not only about an issue but also how much importance to attach to it. More broadly, by seeing an issue cov- ered in the news media—and seeing it covered repeatedly and with great emphasis—we come to share with the media the view that the issue has legitimacy and thus place it on our own agendas.

Evolutions and Revolutions

The original McCombs and Shaw study inspired a variety of questions and challenges by other

32 Agenda-Setting Theory

communication researchers (and ultimately, even by McCombs himself). The studies in which these questions and challenges were investigated resulted in numerous revisions and extensions to the theo- ry’s initial formulation. Among the more important issues raised in the years since the first agenda- setting research was published are the following:

Who Sets the Media’s Agenda?

Many researchers raised what might appear to be an obvious question: If the news media set the agenda for the public, then who (or what) sets the media agenda? Indeed, several scholars have sug- gested that the public agenda has an effect on the media agenda: audiences make clear to the media (through ratings, audience studies, market research, and consumption patterns) what they want to watch and read about, and the media simply respond. In other words, the media are market driven and thus give their audiences what they know will sell. Other scholars have argued that politicians and public relations practitioners con- tribute to the setting of the media agenda. In any case, news organization executives do not con- struct the media agenda in a vacuum.

How Many Agendas?

Everett Rogers and James Dearing believed that agenda-setting theory should acknowledge the coexistence and interrelationships among three agendas: In addition to the public agenda and the media agenda, Rogers and Dearing argued, scholars should also attend to the policy agenda—the hierar- chy of issues that governments and other policy makers act on. In some cases, no one group sets the agendas for the others; rather, the real-world impor- tance of an issue or event (e.g., a major earthquake or an act of war) will equally affect all three, and therefore all three groups will agree on its impor- tance without one group’s influencing the others. Agenda building was offered by Rogers and Dearing as a more appropriate term than agenda setting to characterize this collective, reciprocal process.

Do the Media (Also) Tell Us What to Think?

The most important challenges to the original claims of agenda-setting research directly rebut

Bernard Cohen’s claim that the media tell us only what to think about but not what to think. Indeed, since the mid-1980s, communication scholars have published hundreds of studies showing that the media do tell us both what to think about (which issues to focus on) and what to think (which atti- tudes and judgments to have about them). Moreover, these scholars argue, there is a connec- tion between the two: The perceived salience of an issue (the relative prominence given to an issue by the media and, presumably, agreed on by audi- ences) is related to the evaluations that audience members have about the political actors associated with the issue. Thus, agenda-setting scholarship— and agenda-setting theory—has expanded to encompass both the cognitive aspects of the agenda- setting function (the setting or structuring of the agenda by the mass media) and its affective or emotional aspects (influences on how audiences feel about the items on the agenda).

Central to this expansion have been the concepts of priming and framing, which McCombs and other theorists now claim to be natural extensions of agenda setting. Just as priming a pump prepares the device to work quickly and readily, the repeti- tion and prominence given to a media message about a topic is said to prime our thoughts about that topic: The topic is brought to the forefront of our active cognition, becomes more immediately available to memory, and is thus made more salient (more quickly and readily remembered). As certain issues are primed, so are our attitudes about those issues and their attributes—attitudes that are formed in part by their media framing.

When applied to news coverage, the term fram- ing describes the process of organizing, defining, and structuring a story. Many media theorists argue that even when journalists intend to be objective or balanced in their coverage, they neces- sarily report on issues in ways that give audiences cues as to how to understand the issues, including which aspects of the issues to focus on and which to ignore. Indeed, the core task of all media gate- keepers—to determine which stories to include or exclude from a given day’s newspaper or broadcast and what to emphasize within those stories that are included—itself frames the issues covered in their publications and programs. Beyond inclusion– exclusion decisions, news producers present or represent issues and political actors in specific

33Americanization of Media

ways; how a story is told contributes to its framing and therefore to the communication of how the issues and actors comprising the story should be evaluated by the audience. (Even a seemingly straightforward headline about an election result inevitably involves a framing choice: An editor must decide whether the result should be framed as “Smith beats Jones” or, alternatively, as “Jones loses to Smith.”)

Limitations to Agenda Setting’s Power

Although agenda-setting theory and research now encompass both the what-to-think-about and the what-to-think components of Cohen’s formula- tion, debate still swirls around the core questions of media influence, namely, how directly and to what degree the media set the public agenda. Recent studies suggest that personal variables can mitigate the effects of media agenda setting on individual audience members. Those viewers who do not find the media (or a particular media outlet or source) credible are less likely to have their agendas set by the media. Similarly, viewers who actively disagree with the news values of the sources they use (“How could CNN possibly con- sider that to be an important story?”) will be less susceptible to the agenda-setting function of the media. Still, the findings of nearly four decades of agenda-setting, -priming, and -framing research provide a great deal of support for the claims first made in the 1960s and 1970s by Cohen and by McCombs and Shaw.

David Weiss

See also Diffusion of Innovations; Framing Theory; Media and Mass Communication Theories; Media Effects Theories; Political Communication Theories; Public Opinion Theories

Further Readings

Cohen, B. C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCombs, M. E. (1997). New frontiers in agenda setting: Agendas of attributes and frames. Mass Communication Review, 24, 4–24.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda- setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.

Reese, S. D. (1991). Setting the media’s agenda: A power balance perspective. Communication Yearbook, 14, 309–340.

Rogers, E. M., & Dearing, J. W. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? Communication Yearbook, 11, 555–594.

Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.

Sheafer, T. (2007). How to evaluate it: The role of story- evaluative tone in agenda setting and priming. Journal of Communication, 57, 21–39.

AGGRESSIVENESS

See Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal Aggressiveness Theory

AMERICANIZATION OF MEDIA

At a time when economic, political, environmen- tal, cultural, social, and even religious issues are raised on a global scale, communication research is faced with the question of the media’s power to influence these issues and their outcome. This question is usually phrased in terms of the over- whelming presence of U.S. media and their con- tents around the globe. Increasingly this power to influence has come to be recognized as the impact that the U.S. model of media production and distri- bution has on non-U.S. media and their reception—a process known as the Americanization of the media.

The debate over Americanization began around the 1800s within the context of cultural, techno- logical, and economic exchanges between the United States and Europe, particularly Britain, France, and Germany. The United States embodied the essentials of modernity, democracy, progress, and freedom as it experimented with new and powerful ideas, values, knowledge, technology, and symbols. From both inside and outside its

34 Americanization of Media

borders, questions were raised as to how to exer- cise control over these new and powerful social forces and to whom this control could be (or not be) entrusted.

While much of the pioneering work in develop- ing modern mass media was done in Europe dur- ing the early 19th century (for example, the penny press in France), it was, as Jeremy Tunstall argues, in the United States and especially in and around New York City that most new media were first successfully industrialized and sold to the bulk of the population. While a developing mass-market economy and urbanization were contributing fac- tors, the need to integrate and acculturate the surge of immigrants from countries other than those of western Europe between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries also acted as an agent for the pulling together of scien- tific, technological, financial, entrepreneurial, and even moral forces to create what was to become the foundation of the U.S. cultural industries— contemporary mass media. These were set up to Americanize the incoming mass of immigrants and to Americanize the population within the United States, whose divisive wounds of the Civil War had not completely healed. Even today the Americanization of the media is carried on within the United States when foreign contents are accul- turated, either through narrative posturing or through editing, to better fit a preconceived and homogenizing U.S. worldview.

Over the decades and centuries, then, ideas, values, knowledge, and artifacts from the United States have traveled across time and space through the words and deeds of men and women in every walk of life: entrepreneurs, teachers, artists, mis- sionaries, journalists, humanitarians, athletes, mil- itary personnel, tourists, intellectuals, politicians, ambassadors, students, scientists, and consultants. Each served as a representative of what the United States stood for and, more globally, what America stood for. The United States became identified with America, the American dream, and the American way of life, thus co-opting all the Americas (North, Central, and South) and all that they contain.

This spreading of things “made in America”— first into Europe, then into the other Americas and parts of Asia, and finally touching every region of the planet—was sometimes imposed, sometimes solicited, sometimes welcomed, sometimes resisted.

Depending on the host country’s economic, politi- cal, cultural, religious, social, and historical con- text and power structures, at times the elites would resist and the popular would welcome, or the con- trary would occur. In many cases, the representa- tives of the United States would side, outwardly or through intermediaries, with those whose power to influence the outcome was decisive.

The Americanization of the media is character- ized by a push–pull dynamic. Media technology and content, as well as distribution and marketing strategies and practices, are pushed on importing- country buyers, raising issues and accusations of U.S. media imperialism. When someone speaks of Americanization, the image of an invasion of media products “made in America” in the local/ national markets immediately comes to mind. But Americanization also refers to the apprehended menace of losing one’s cultural identity by “acting American,” by adopting from the United States “ways of doing things”—whether in the realms of politics, economics, or social and cultural prac- tices. This means adopting the market economy of media ownership, production, distribution, and merchandization; the popularization of media con- tents; the ethics of news journalism (as opposed to opinion journalism); and the overt and covert alli- ances between culture and supply economy (as opposed to publicly funded culture) and between journalists and decision centers (as opposed to social critics).

However, there is also a “pull” factor based on high-quality technology and innovations, content attractiveness, and effective distribution. As a result, the importing countries are pressured to emulate and redefine their policies, modes of pro- duction, and canons of culture (especially those of popular culture) along the lines of those prevalent in the United States. The pull factor, then, can be interpreted as the political and cultural will to compete with the United States in the lucrative global market and also to safeguard national and regional cultures and identities by aggressively promoting their own highly attractive, profes- sional, popular cultural productions. For some this is seen as beating the Americans at their own games; for others it is nothing more than a sellout to the United States.

There is no doubt that the media in the United States still influence media organization and

35Americanization of Media

content in other countries (press, music, television, cinema); the counterinfluence, however, is rarely acknowledged. Waxing over such key components as intellectual property and national identities often fosters Americanization within the United States. Case in point: Disney made Cinderella and other figures from the writings of German academ- ics Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm as American as Huckleberry Finn. In promoting The Brothers Grimm, Hollywood portrayed the brothers as “Will and Jake, traveling con-artists.”

Another case in point is the popular televised show Deal or No Deal, which is not U.S.-American but U.S.-Americanized. Because it is broadcast on a U.S. network with local participants, audiences assume that it, and its Canadian-born host Howie Mandel, are American. However the concept was developed and is owned by Endemol, a Netherlands- based production company known for creating such shows as Big Brother and Fear Factor. The first version of the show was broadcast in the Netherlands as Miljoenenjacht (The Hunt for Millions), followed by Australia, which was the first to broadcast it under the title Deal or No Deal. Versions of this show are now broadcast in 45 countries across the continents.

The combined weight of history, technology, and financial entrepreneurship has given the U.S. media such an overwhelming, self-centered, domi- nant position that even when the U.S. media import contents and formats from other countries, these are Americanized for the audiences within the United States and assumed as such by other countries. In this sense, the first successful industri- alized mass media are the Americanized U.S. media. For other countries that underwent the same process of urbanization, industrialization, and nation building, this first social experiment in creating a contemporary, popular, urban, industri- alized culture became a benchmark to be either emulated, adapted, or resisted.

For every argument that the media outside the United States are becoming more and more Americanized, there can be found a counterargu- ment. The financial capacity to mass-produce and, more importantly, to effectively distribute U.S.- American media products, particularly film and television, across the globe is still impressive. Also impressive, as investigated by Jeremy Tunstall, are the large foreign revenues earned by Hollywood

movies and television series through exports to other countries. Screens everywhere, in airports, hotel rooms, theaters, private homes, bars, and waiting rooms, seem to offer an endless array of films, news reports, sitcoms, reality shows, talk shows, and sports events “made in the USA.” Such a massive presence is made possible because, through technology, financial investments, market- ing, and merchandising, U.S. operators have obtained arrangements that favor the cornering of key distribution outlets and because they can over- produce and undersell many of the media products in countries outside the United States. In Canada, for example, as in many other countries around the world, the screens of film and television are overwhelmingly filled with U.S.-American content simply because the need to fill them is there (the attractiveness and aggressiveness of the market) and because it is cheaper to buy American than to produce and distribute national products.

While the issues at the heart of Americanization of media have shifted, the importance of the issue remains. During the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, the concepts and ideologies of cultural and media imperialism and the question of the hege- monic power of the U.S.-American media were an integral part of the battle between capitalism and Communism over the establishment of a new world order. At the same time, documented research has shown that, with the possible notable exception of music, national popular culture, while less favored in terms of exposition and financing, regularly wins the favor of the reading, listening, and viewing audiences. National media products reflect and may differentiate and reinforce cultural identities and even shore up resistance to Americanization. This does not mean that U.S. media will not impinge on values, norms, belief systems, mentalities, habits, rules, technologies, practices, institutions, and behaviors of non-U.S. Americans. Evidence to sup- port this is quite strong, and those who argue that cultural resistance and adaptation can not only suc- cessfully counter Americanization but, in fact, de- Americanize national media underestimate the ties between U.S. cultural industries and the economic, military, and political interests of the United States and its power to influence change on a global scale. These ties are powerful in the sense that they allow cultural industries, in their own right, to wield power, defined as the ability to bring forth the

36 Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

results one wants and, if necessary, to change the behavior of others to make this happen.

While this power to bring about desired change can no longer be expressed in terms of imperialism, of a forceful imposition on passive recipients reduced to a state of colonized people, it can be expressed in the Gramscian vocabulary of hege- mony, particularly when a country’s economy is founded, more and more, on mass consumption and on lifestyles for which the media are the major promoters and working agents. Adapting national standards, policies, and habits to accessible, popu- larized, and (relatively) low-cost imported U.S.- American media practices (genres, modes of production, programming, marketing, distribution, and merchandizing) is really adopting a politicoeco- nomical model that gears cultural products to fuel an economy based on a lifestyle of consumption. In this sense, the Americanization of the media is occurring not necessarily through their content but through the ties that interlock cultural industries with economic, political, and even military power interests within and outside the United States.

The United States’ cultural influence is put to the test, and attested, when non-American and non-Western countries that have adopted the industrialized U.S. mass media system actively seek to acquire, either outright or through international coproduction, the hardware and software to foster and strengthen their own cultural identity and to better resist Americanization. Ironically, the way to counter and resist the influence of U.S. media is to accelerate the process of cultural exchange and diversity by using the very technology and prac- tices that gave and still are giving dominance to the U.S. media.

Today the debate over Americanization of the media has moved from the spotlight of the interna- tional political arena to the more tempered circles of academia and international bodies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and the World Trade Organization, under the repeated and sustained critiques from fields of inquiry as diverse as political economy, cultural studies, postmodernism, and postcolonial- ism. But because this issue is now absent from the political, economic, and cultural public agendas of governments does not mean it does not have eco- nomic, political, and cultural implications; in fact, given the globalization of media, the issue remains

pressing. The United States was the first country to shape a media-based, modern, industrial, urban popular culture. The early capability to mass- produce, to attract hardworking, mobile, skilled migrants, and to expand trade certainly helped spread U.S.-American cultural products, entrepre- neurship, and commercial practices abroad. Today the tendency toward Americanization of global media remains strong chiefly because the history of media production and urban culture is interlocked with the history of U.S. economic, political, and military power, which, in turn, has created an uneven playing field for the many newly competing national and regional cultural industries and their specific audiences.

To study the Americanization of the media, one needs to take into consideration two intercon- nected historical questions: First, what are the economic, technological, political, military, and social interests that Americanization best serves, and second, what are the social, economic, and political constraints countries must overcome to best appropriate the U.S. cultural industries’ power to influence?

Roger de la Garde

See also Critical Theory; Popular Culture Theories

Further Readings

De Grazia, V. (2005). Irresistible empire: America’s advance through twentieth-century Europe. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Tunstall, J. (2008). The media were American: U S. mass media in decline. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Elteren, M. (2006). Americanism and Americanization: A critical history of domestic and global influence. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

van Elteren, M. (2006). Rethinking Americanization abroad: Toward a critical alternative to prevailing paradigms. Journal of American Culture, 29, 345–367.

ANXIETY/UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT THEORY

The anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) the- ory, developed by William B. Gudykunst, explains

37Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

how strangers can practice communication effec- tiveness via the mindful management of anxiety and uncertainty levels of interaction. The root of the AUM theory was based on an integration of the uncertainty reduction theory of Charles Berger and the social identity theory of Henri Tajfel. AUM theory is one of the major intercultural com- munication theories that explains the antecedent, process, and outcome dimensions of intergroup (intercultural) and interpersonal communication effectiveness.

The fermentation stage of the AUM theory first appeared in 1985 with a strong emphasis on effec- tive intergroup communication process. Several versions later, the first “official” version of the theory—labeled clearly as the AUM theory— appeared in 1993. The theory was intended to be a practical theory to improve the quality of inter- group and interpersonal relations. In a later rendi- tion, in 1998, the AUM theory was extended to explain effective intercultural adjustment pro- cesses. The building-block concepts of the theory include strangers, anxiety, uncertainty, thresholds, mindfulness, cross-cultural variability, effective communication, and intercultural adjustment.

According to the basic premise of the AUM theory, when individuals encounter strangers or culturally dissimilar others, they often experience both anxiety and uncertainty. The concept of stranger is drawn from the sociological work of Georg Simmel, which held that a stranger can reflect both near and far qualities; nearness con- notes physical closeness, and remoteness refers to dissimilar values, outlooks, or behaviors. From this stranger–in-group, figure–ground context, AUM theory emphasizes the notion that almost all initial interactions are both intergroup and inter- personal in nature and characterized by anxiety and uncertainty.

Anxiety refers to affective feelings such as uneasiness, awkwardness, confusion, stress, or apprehensiveness about what might occur in the encounter. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is a cognitive phenomenon and involves both predic- tive uncertainty and explanatory uncertainty. While predictive uncertainty refers to our inability to pre- dict strangers’ attitudes or behaviors, explanatory uncertainty refers to our inability to come up with a coherent explanation for strangers’ unfamiliar behaviors. In addition, as individuals navigate

across cultural boundaries, they have minimum and maximum thresholds for tolerating anxiety and uncertainty. Too much or too little anxiety or uncertainty hampers intercultural communication effectiveness.

For example, when emotional anxiety is too high, cultural strangers would tend to communi- cate on automatic pilot and interpret dissimilar others’ behaviors using their own cultural frame of reference. However, when emotional anxiety is too low, they might act in a very indifferent or ethno- centric manner. Likewise, when cognitive uncer- tainty is too high, cultural strangers would not be able to accurately interpret each other’s incoming verbal and nonverbal messages. When cognitive uncertainty is too low, cultural strangers might overrely on stereotypes to decode the intercultural interaction episode and make overgeneralized attributions.

The final version of the AUM-based effective communication theory has 47 axioms that deal with relationships among self-concept, motivation to interact, reaction to strangers, social categoriza- tion of strangers, situational processes, connec- tions with strangers, ethical interactions, uncertainty management, anxiety management, mindfulness, and communication effectiveness. Two of the AUM axioms provide an illustration:

Axiom 5: An increase in perceived threats to our social identities when interacting with strangers will produce an increase in our anxiety and a decrease in our confidence in predicting their behavior.

Axiom 37: An increase in our mindfulness of the process of our communication with strangers will produce an increase in our ability to manage anxiety and an increase in our ability to manage our uncertainty.

According to the core thrust of the AUM theory, intercultural or intergroup communication is effec- tive when individuals are able to maximize under- standings and minimize misunderstandings. In order to achieve this meaning coordination process, indi- viduals have to learn to be mindful. The character- istics of mindfulness are derived from the social psychology research work of Ellen Langer in 1989. To be mindful means being open to new informa- tion and multiple cultural perspectives, creating

38 Archeology and Genealogy

more differentiated categories to understand cul- tural strangers’ viewpoints, and being sensitive to the complex process of meaning negotiation between different identity groups. Mindfulness serves as the key moderating process between the two underly- ing causes (anxiety management and uncertainty management) and communication effectiveness.

For example, in applying the AUM theory to the intercultural adjustment process, strangers or sojourners need to keep their anxiety and uncer- tainty levels within the threshold ranges so that they can activate mindfulness. Mindfulness, in the stranger–host cultural context, can mean increas- ing cultural knowledge about and language skills of the unfamiliar culture or increasing the tendency to describe rather than evaluate negatively the host nationals’ “bizarre” behaviors. In addition, mem- bers of the host culture can be mindful of such conditions as receptivity levels to strangers and how perceptions of discrimination can decrease or increase anxiety or stress in a new cultural milieu. Finally, cross-cultural value dimensions such as individualism–collectivism and weak–strong uncer- tainty avoidance are incorporated in the AUM theory to predict the influence of cultural values on strangers’ cultural adjustment process. Based on the core tenets of the AUM theory, an intercultural adjustment training blueprint has been developed with the overall goal of helping sojourners to adjust effectively to a new and unfamiliar cultural landscape.

Stella Ting-Toomey

See also Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory; Intercultural Communication Theories; Social and Communicative Anxiety; Social Identity Theory; Uncertainty Management Theories; Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Further Readings

Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of effective communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In

W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of strangers’ intercultural adjustment. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 419–458). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Langer, E. J. (1998). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Simmel, G., and Levine, D. N. (Eds.). (1972). Georg Simmel on individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ARCHEOLOGY AND GENEALOGY

Although the terms archeology and genealogy have established meanings in other disciplines, in the context of communication theory they are most often associated with methods for research- ing the past proposed by French theorist Michel Foucault. The goal of both archeological and genealogical approaches to history is to uncover how it is that certain ways of thinking and approaches to knowledge have become “common sense.” Archeologies of history tend to be directed toward uncovering the moments at which various ways of knowing come to be dominant and insti- tutionalized, thus demonstrating how contingent the “taken for granted” has always been. Genealogies of history seek to tie these archeo- logical shifts in knowledge and consciousness to broader historical transformations and the exer- cise of power behind those transformations. Both archeology and genealogy provide research approaches that question whether the develop- ment of communication theory and practice is the result of continual refinement and evolution or the result of historically contingent shifts in power.

Both of these methodologies spring from a fun- damental skepticism about the nature of traditional histories. Foucault argues that most historical accounts suffer from a variety of interlinked but functional shortcomings. Stated simply, conven- tional accounts of the evolution of thought and historic events vastly oversimplify both those events and their causes. While this is an inherent quality of all histories, Foucault believed that the creation of

39Archeology and Genealogy

knowledge about the past serves as part of a broader project by which people and institutions determine what range of truths will be widely accepted. Thus, rather than simply reflecting what “really” happened in the past, histories document those ideas, institutions, and political actors who emerged victorious from highly contested struggles over truth, meaning, and power while excluding or marginalizing other ideas, institutions, and people. In the case of histories of knowledge and technol- ogy, presenting the past as an orderly unfolding of ever increasingly rational and accurate ideas about science, government, education, and society is not only an oversimplification but a distortion. Rather than simply tracing major refinements in ways of thinking, such histories conceal struggles over truth and meaning whose outcomes were never inher- ently more superior, accurate, or inevitable than other potential outcomes. Equally important, they silence those individuals, ideas, experiences, and ways of living that did not prevail, erasing their existence from the historical record. Similarly, Foucault argued that political, economic, and social histories similarly serve to legitimate the power and authority of the victors of past power struggles, while overlooking the real power relationships that impact people on a day-to-day basis.

The problem with traditional histories is not simply that they are dishonest or incomplete but that they establish a “commonsense” or “taken for granted” understanding of the past that serves to continue and reinforce the power of the winners of those distant struggles into the present. By defining the range of ideas and outcomes that are conceiv- able under our commonly held understandings of what truth is; what ideas, institutions, and tech- nologies are legitimate; and what ways of living are healthy and moral, histories shape and fore- close possibilities in the present. Thus, Foucault saw the creation of knowledge—and especially historical knowledge—as inseparable from the exer- cise of power. And histories constitute a particu- larly effective and problematic form of “knowledge/ power” in that they simultaneously reproduce the exercises of power that underlie our stories about the past, while cloaking those exercises of power by presenting contemporary understandings as largely uncontested and inevitable.

The first research approach Foucault developed in an effort to simultaneously expose and remedy

these tendencies was what he termed archeology. As with all his approaches to research methodol- ogy, archeology is premised on the belief that the exercise of mundane, localized, and bureaucratic authority and ideas is more important in shaping peoples’ lives than are the traditional big-picture events covered by conventional histories, such as the procession of governmental leaders or the con- duct of wars. This premise has several important methodological ramifications. First, archeologies tend to focus on specific bodies of scientific or bureaucratic practice and knowledge in order to determine how they inform contemporary taken- for-granted understandings about such generally uncontested areas of “truth” as medicine, psychia- try, and the human sciences in general. Second, archeologies focus on what Foucault described as discourses—interrelated sets of statements that serve to convey, embody, and reinforce a range of valid claims about what is true and knowable by a given group of people at a given time. Foucault argued that these systems of truth claims by which certain knowledges are possible, or discursive for- mations, largely work below the consciousness of authors and actors but may be ascertained by examining the documents and statements by which knowledge is practiced and promulgated. Thus, while the term archeology suggests an effort to dig beneath the surface of conventional accounts of the past to uncover the “truth,” Foucault actually believed that the ideas, stories, experiences, and struggles that are otherwise excluded or marginal- ized by traditional histories are readily ascertain- able by looking at the surface of texts and artifacts from the past, which then allow the researcher to dig beneath the consciousness of those who cre- ated those texts and artifacts. By focusing on the ways that contemporary understandings of such issues as mental illness and medical knowledge gained the status of common sense, archeology involves exploring discourses by which those sys- tems of knowledge achieved dominance. In so doing, archeologies seek to demonstrate how such taken-for-granted truths are actually contingent and contestable products of specific exercises of power at specific times and in specific places.

Foucault’s subsequent genealogies were intended to build on the method of archeology while tracing the processes by which one set of discursive forma- tions yields to another. Actively disputing histories

40 Argumentation Theories

of thought that present the evolution of knowledge as the manifestation of increasingly rational or effi- cient ways of thinking, genealogies seek to expose the ways that transformations in knowledge are both driven by and inseparable from shifts in power. This involves a study, not only of such archeological sources as texts and artifacts for the discourses they reveal, but also of broader social power relations that actually help animate the emergence of certain discourses and the disappearance of others. Thus, genealogy involves the simultaneous analysis of discourses and of the ways those discourses are integrated into and reproduced by personal habits, social norms, institutional rules, governmental agencies, and the like. For example, Foucault’s genealogies trace the ways that knowledge about sexual and criminal deviance is both reflected in and reproduced by individuals and institutions as part of broader projects to extend social control over bodies. In seeking to expose both the ways that knowledge and power are linked (as with archeolo- gies) and the ways that shifts in commonsense knowledge result from specific power struggles and historical contingencies, genealogies seek to chal- lenge simultaneously the grand narratives of tradi- tional histories and the “taken for grantedness” of contemporary systems of knowledge and belief.

John Carr

See also Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical Rhetoric; Critical Theory; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Poststructuralism; Power and Power Relations

Further Readings

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1982). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: Vol. 1. An introduction. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended (D. Macy, Trans.). New York: Picador.

ARGUMENTATION THEORIES

No single theory of argumentation exists. Instead, a constellation of features and concepts drawn

from philosophy, rhetoric, and social theories infuses different concepts and explanations of argumentation. Since ancient times, an emphasis on rationality and reasonable communication dis- tinguished argumentation from other kinds of communication. Argumentation is a cooperative process in which communicators make inferences from various grounds and evidence; provide justi- fications for their conclusions or claims based on those starting points; choose among disputed options in controversies; and promote, defend, and amend positions and standpoints in response to other participants in the argumentative processes.

In contrast to formal logic, argumentation emphasizes practical reasoning, the everyday argu- ments that people use to solve disputes in interper- sonal and public contexts. Examining products, processes, and procedures provides general per- spectives for theorizing argumentation. Pragma- dialectics, the new rhetoric, and narrative paradigms explain and offer prominent frameworks for theo- rizing about argumentation.

General Perspectives for Theorizing Argumentation

Joseph Wenzel conceptualized three perspectives for studying argumentation theory: products derived from logic, processes associated with rhetoric, and procedures connected with dialectic. These perspectives have been reconfigured by some theorists to take into account the different fields or spheres in which they occur.

Products From Logic

Argument products extend the concepts of for- mal logic, a correct form of reasoning based on the linguistic progression that moves from a certitude stated in a major premise to an assertion of condi- tions in the minor premise and ends with a claim solely derived from both premises. Informal logic emphasizes everyday reasoning in which people make inferences, draw conclusions, and reason from one set of options to another in order to resolve disagreements or solve public problems. A long tradition of pedagogy based on informal logic theorized about argument products as different types of evidence, reasoning, and methods for cre- ating and evaluating arguments.

41Argumentation Theories

Evidence, the primary feature of argument products, consists of one or more grounds that arguers put forth as the basis for believing their claims. Naming and identifying adequate evidence is a common approach for teaching argumentation theory. Evidence consists of definitions, testimony, examples, personal experiences, history, and statis- tics located in complicated chains of reasoning found in speeches, essays, literary works, propos- als, and other discourses. Pedagogical approaches to argumentation establish explicit norms and standards for evaluating a particular type of evi- dence. For example, a norm for assessing the qual- ity of statistical evidence depends on the extent to which numerical measures derive from reliable and valid methods that are up-to-date and generaliz- able to populations other than those from which the statistical evidence originated.

Of equal importance are the types of logical connections that supply the implicative structure in arguments, including signs, examples, cause– effect, analogy, authority, and definition. Argu- mentation pedagogy explicates the different types of reasoning and the relevant implicative structure that links evidence to claims. If an argument fails to meet these standards, a fallacy may result. Fallacies are errors in reasoning that deceive an audience by seeming to prove a claim based on a faulty inference. A cause–effect argument, for example, should establish a relationship between two events so that the first brings about the sec- ond; that is, the high price of oil is the cause of inflation. A type of fallacy, false cause (post hoc), results when two events or actions occur at the same time and the arguer infers that one event is the cause of the other without considering other possible causes. Errant logical connections lead to a variety of other fallacies resulting from appeals to authority, pity, fear, the majority, or tradition. Because fallacies are both common and interesting, teachers often engage students in diagnosing the errors in argument products and explaining how flawed arguments can be avoided.

Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger adapted a model developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin for teaching argumentation that describes and evaluates a unit of proof as an argument prod- uct by creating a visual construction of its parts. Diagramming begins with a claim: the judgment or conclusion that the arguer wants someone to

accept. The diagram identifies the evidence (grounds or data) that serves as the basis for the claim and the warrants that make the connection between the evidence and claim. A reservation placed under the claim states the conditions under which the claim does not hold, and a qualifier acknowledges a limitation on the generalizability of the claim, using words like most, many, or some. Backing provides additional evidence to support the warrant. Although Toulmin diagrams proved to be a useful tool for teaching students about logical products, they have limited potential as a method for analyzing and evaluating complex argumentative processes.

Processes From Rhetoric

The conception of argument processes derives from rhetorical theory and concentrates on the ways people argue in interpersonal and public interactions. Processes of practical reasoning con- centrate on reasoned and purposeful rhetorical interactions that seek to resolve disagreements and disputes.

One simple concept of practical reasoning is the enthymeme, a truncated syllogism in which one or more of the premises or the conclusion is unstated but supplied by the audience to complete the argu- ment. Examples of condensed arguments of this type are abundant. Many advertisements use enthymemes that present a conclusion—buy this brand of cola or vote for this candidate—that rely on audiences to fill in the missing premise and thereby supply the logical principles on which the conclusion is based. Enthymemes appear in many argumentative processes because audiences com- monly contribute to the meaning of the reasons.

Argumentation processes take into account the rhetorical resources used by arguers in interper- sonal and public disputes. For example, theories about argumentation processes consider the uses and effects of multiple chains of reasoning of com- plex arguments and counterarguments that involve rhetorical concepts, such as arguers’ character, sty- listic features of the discourses and interactions, and exigencies of the situation that generated the argument. Other relational, ideological, or ide- ational concepts impact argumentation processes in substantive ways. Examining the intricacies of argumentation processes reveals how arguers find

42 Argumentation Theories

and construe issues; what choices they make regarding evidence; what strategies they use to assert, modify, and refute arguments of others; and how arguments are first assembled and then altered in the process of resolving disagreements and mak- ing decisions. This process perspective applies to analyses of the development, use, and outcomes of argumentation in marital disputes, children’s play- ground disagreements, and roommate conflicts and investigations of complex public policy disputes such as those involving women’s rights, immigra- tion, global warming, and stem cell research.

Procedures From Dialectic

Argument procedures include explicit and implicit rules and interactional protocols that influence disputes and reveal the situational con- straints and cultural norms affecting argumenta- tive processes. Dialectic, the art of arguing for or against an issue from a particular standpoint, pro- ceeds according to rules and norms agreed on by disputants, such as searching for probable truths, avoiding fallacies, and resolving controversial issues. Strategic dialectical processes are planned interactions that arguers employ to test ideas by asserting and defending standpoints and by refin- ing and reformulating evidence, claims, and infer- ential patterns in response to the reasoning of other disputants. Dialectic is a cooperative means of arriving at a reasoned decision according to specific procedures.

Dialectical procedures help to promote ethical argumentation and enable disputants to reason in a civil manner. Several features characterize dialec- tical procedures: (a) Arguers cooperate in obeying rules in order to achieve a common purpose; (b) arguers present complete and accurate content; (c) arguers are open about their positions and standpoints and clear about the ideas they offer to support them; (d) arguers apply rigorous standards for presenting their own arguments and evaluating those of other disputants; (e) arguers respect other disputants; and (f) arguers act as restrained parti- sans who retain a standpoint at the same time they show a willingness to accept the amendments and judgments of others toward that standpoint. Parliamentary procedure is an example of a proce- dure that regulates the structure, content, and ethi- cal interaction during decision-making processes.

Spheres

Some theorists reconfigure products, processes, and procedures of arguments according to the different fields or spheres in which they occur. Thomas Goodnight and others elaborated this construct by examining contextual similarities among spheres—collections of people or groups, organizations, and professions—that interact with one another to make decisions or resolve dis- putes. The reasonableness of argumentation in a particular sphere depends on how arguers con- struct reasons; engage with others; and support, defend, and amend issues and standpoints accord- ing to the norms and rules of a sphere. For exam- ple, differences exist between personal, technical, and public spheres because arguers emphasize different procedures and processes in construct- ing and evaluating evidence, providing justifica- tions, using language, and pursuing specific goals of a sphere. In personal spheres, arguers seek to resolve interpersonal disputes by identifying issues and negotiating outcomes according to mutually agreed-on rules. Friends and coworkers tend to resolve their disputes in personal spheres. Argu- mentation in technical spheres, however, adheres to explicit rules of evidence and modes of justifi- cation that direct reasoning processes toward specific goals and outcomes. The scientific and legal professions are exemplars of technical spheres. Public spheres are discursive arenas in which arguers take into account customs, tradi- tions, and requirements of a polity and deal with the public business in deliberative forums, such as town meetings, legislative arenas, or the Internet. In counterpublic spheres, minority groups argue in ways that challenge and resist the standpoints defended by those holding positions of public power. Sphere theories construe argument prod- ucts, processes, and procedures in innovative ways that bring attention to the importance of various contexts, goals, and procedures of argu- mentation theories.

Sample Theories

Various frameworks have been developed to theo- rize the argumentation process. Three sample the- ories will be discussed here: pragma-dialectics, the new rhetoric, and the narrative paradigm.

43Argumentation Theories

Pragma-Dialectics

Pragma-dialectics, an argumentation theory introduced and refined by theorists at the University of Amsterdam, relies on reasoned and orderly dia- lectical procedures and practical reasoning pro- cesses for resolving differences of opinion. This perspective emphasizes how particular speech acts used in social-reasoning processes increase or decrease the acceptability of arguers’ controversial standpoints in disputes. This perspective stresses both the dialectical procedures and the instrumen- tal and pragmatic goals that arguers pursue. One key procedural rule is that proponents of a stand- point must defend their positions when requested to do so, and another is that arguers must defend standpoints using correct argumentative schemes that address the patterns of inference underlying an argument. A scheme consists of types of arguments, such as appeal to authority, cause–effect reasoning, or analogy. Explicit standards exist for judging a particular scheme, such as determining whether an analogy shows sufficient similarity to another idea that it establishes a reasonable connection.

Argument analysis is the primary goal of pragma- dialectics. After categorizing a dispute according to sequential stages of confrontation, opening, argu- mentation, and conclusion, analysts then describe the disputed issues, identify standpoints of the arguers in relation to those issues, state the explicit and implicit arguments associated with disputants’ standpoints, and explain the complex structures and standards that apply to the arguments. Speci- fically, analysts utilize pragma-dialectics to explain disputes according to the interplay of argumen- tative speech acts, instrumental goals, and dialec- tical procedures. Speech acts take the form of arguers’ verbal claims—assertives, declaratives, and expressives—offered to support, defend, and amend specific standpoints. Instrumental actions consist of the strategic maneuvers that arguers employ to achieve their goals by accommodating their ideas to others. Strategic maneuvers demand consideration of the sufficiency of evidence, the commitments implicated in the speech acts, and the schemes utilized in relation to arguers’ standpoints. Resolving disagreements also depends on how arguers meet their dialogical obligations of coop- eration, thoroughness, and the presentation of appropriate evidence. Pragma-dialectic analysis

can be applied to resolutions of simple disagree- ments between a tenant and an apartment manager, for example, as well as complex disputes in legal forums and international negotiations.

The New Rhetoric

The new rhetoric emphasizes appeals to values as the primary means that arguers use to persuade others. Audiences consist of ensembles of people from whom arguers seek adherence to their claims. In order to make their claims acceptable to audi- ences, arguers construct reasons based on premises that come from facts (ideas that are of general knowledge and are verifiable), presumptions (shared and generally believed ideas about reality), and values (judgments about what is good or moral in society). Gaining audiences’ adherence to arguments depends on how arguers make connec- tions between their own values and those of their audiences. The particular audience consists of real and definable groups of people that arguers seek to persuade in a specific situation. Voters in a city election, for example, are the particular audience addressed by a city council candidate. The univer- sal audience is not the real ensemble of people addressed but is instead an ideal of competent and reasonable people holding universal values of jus- tice, fairness, and equality. In order for arguers to gain the adherence of audiences to the reasons they put forth, the arguers must explicitly address the values of their particular audience and implicitly invoke the values of the universal audience.

Argument types depend on values. The quasi- logical argument, for example, creates illusions about the connection between claims and the audi- ence values on which those claims are based. These arguments are partially logical because they contain the structure of arguments, value associations, and connections, but not the logical content. For exam- ple, when legislators claim that new taxes hurt the middle class more than the upper class, they give the impression that the tax code is unfair although the taxes may in fact reduce the income of the upper class by a higher percentage than they do the income of the middle class. The persuasiveness of arguments about taxation policy depends on argu- ers’ and audiences’ sharing values of fairness rather than on causal logic based on facts. Another type, arguments based on the structure of reality, justifies

44 Argumentation Theories

arguers’ positions by linking them to audiences’ opinions and experiences of reality. For example, when arguers claim that global warming is a threat to the future of the planet, arguers rely more on their audiences’ opinions and experiences related to climate change than on their own ideas. This type of argumentation assumes that audiences already hold a view of reality, and so arguers create reasons directly aligned with audiences’ preexisting knowl- edge of reality. In contrast, arguments establishing the structure of reality promote a view at odds with the reality familiar to audiences. In this type of rea- soning, arguers utilize examples, analogies, and models to construct a reasonable view of reality that is not part of the audiences’ knowledge. For example, to create a structure of reality for a crimi- nal trial, defense attorneys may try to construe a criminal action as accidental rather than intentional based on the supposed reality in which it occurred. Although the jurors have no direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the crime, the defense attorney creates a reality (a description of circumstances) based on analogies of events famil- iar to jurors. The attorney’s descriptions serve as the basis for arguments showing that an action was accidental, not intentional.

The new rhetoric explains arguers’ strategic uses of reasoning based on associations and dis- sociations of ideas and issues in ways that gain audiences’ adherence. The reasonableness of argu- mentation process is influenced, not by external rules or norms, but by arguers’ explicit and implicit connections of their reasoning to the values of the particular and universal audience.

Narrative Paradigm

Narrative paradigm theory also conceptualizes rhetorical processes of argumentation influenced by values. Although stories are not the most com- mon form for expressing arguments, they are a prominent kind of practical reasoning used by arguers to influence their audiences. Narratives convey specialized social knowledge that evokes reasoned responses from audiences but does not rely on the same kinds of evidence, modes of infer- ence, and justifications typical of other products and processes of argumentation. Instead, narra- tive reasoning depends on how audiences make meaning from the values embedded in narratives

and how these values inform their judgments and actions. Narratives contain both a logic and a rationality derived from how audiences attribute coherence and fidelity, along with probability, or the likelihood that the events described could have happened, to the stories they hear, read, and see. Coherence refers to the internal fit of the narrative parts, that is, the consistency of characters, action, dialogue, and setting. Fidelity relates to the truth value of the story, whether the narrative fits with the experiences of the audiences and their notions about sound reasoning. Taken together, both cre- ate narrative rationality, a quality that enables people to understand the actions of others and judge narrative accounts as reasoned explanations of human choice and action. Values are the core of narratives because they supply good reasons that authorize, sanction, or justify certain kinds of beliefs and actions for audiences. Good narrative reasoning embodies characteristics similar to other argumentation processes; it includes facts, assumes relevance, contains inferential patterns, embodies coherence and consistency, and addresses tran- scendent issues.

Narrative paradigm theory de-emphasizes infor- mal logical products and stresses argument pro- cesses as social constructions of values. Narrative rationality applies to argumentation in fictional literature, television and stage dramas, and biogra- phies and autobiographies, as well as to processes of jury decision making, organizational advocacy, and many kinds of political discourse. Some com- munication theorists apply narrative paradigm theory so generally that they lose sight of the cen- trality of practical reasoning processes and values and instead concentrate on narrative as a general idea related to communication practices.

Conclusion

Argument theories examine practical reasoning products, processes, and procedures. Theorists are indebted to traditions of logic, rhetoric, and dialec- tic for the concepts they have appropriated, modi- fied, and constructed to explain argumentation. Early theories of argumentation developed in re - sponse to pedagogical goals. Later theories of pragma-dialectics, the new rhetoric, and narrative paradigm responded to pragmatic, analytical, and interpretive goals pertinent to the use of reasoning

45Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal Aggressiveness Theory

as a means of settling disagreements or disputes, making critical decisions, and socially constructing knowledge. In this way, argumentation theories are constellations of concepts that explain the cen- trality of reasoning to theories of communication.

Janice Schuetz

See also Conversation Analysis; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Narrative and Narratology; Public Sphere; Rhetorical Theory; Speech Act Theory

Further Readings

Asen, R., & Brouwer, D. C. (2001). Counterpublics and the state. Albany: State University of New York.

Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1978). Decision by debate. New York: Harper & Row.

Freely, A. J. (1993). Argumentation and debate. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 1–27.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.

Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. (Original work published 1958)

Trapp, R., & Schuetz, J. (Eds.). (2007). Perspectives on argumentation. New York: IDEA. (Original work published 1990)

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In J. Schuetz & R. Trapp (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

ARGUMENTATIVENESS, ASSERTIVENESS, AND VERBAL AGGRESSIVENESS THEORY

Predispositions toward aggressive communication have been found to explain much of a person’s

message-sending and message-receiving behavior. Understanding the role of aggressive communication in conflict provides valuable insight into communi- cation behaviors people exhibit when disagreement exists. Individuals engaged in aggressive communi- cation often adopt “attack” and “defend” modes of thinking and behavior. These behaviors can be employed destructively as well as constructively. This entry defines aggressive communication, distin- guishes constructive from destructive symbolic aggressive communication, describes assertiveness, argumentativeness, hostility, and verbal aggressive- ness, and explores consequences of constructive and destructive aggressive ness in relationships.

Symbolic Aggressive Communication

The first distinction made in categorizing aggres- sion is physical versus symbolic. Aggression can take both physical and symbolic forms. Physical aggression involves the aggressor’s forceful use of his or her body (roughly handling or striking objects or others). Symbolic aggression involves the aggressor’s forceful use of his or her communi- cation (words, gestures, facial expressions, vocal tone, etc.). It is this latter set of behaviors with which aggressive communication is concerned.

Symbolic aggression can be divided into two types: constructive and destructive. Aggressive communication is composed of not one, but sev- eral traits, including assertiveness, argumentative- ness, hostility, and verbal aggressiveness. Each of these traits interacts with environmental factors to produce message behavior.

Constructive Aggressive Communication

Assertiveness is considered a constructive trait because it involves verbal and nonverbal symbols to exert control, obtain justified rewards, and stand up for one’s rights. Individuals who are assertive can use symbols aggressively but tend to do so in socially acceptable ways. One facet of assertiveness is argumentativeness, defined as a stable trait that predisposes individuals involved in a conflict to defend positions on controversial issues and to ver- bally attack the positions of others. Argumen- tativeness is considered a subset of assertiveness as all arguing is assertive communication, but not all assertiveness involves arguing.

46 Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal Aggressiveness Theory

Individuals differ in their levels of trait argu- mentativeness and can be classified into three groups: high, low, and moderate. A person high in argumentativeness enjoys arguing and will eagerly and readily use arguments to attack others’ posi- tions and defend their own positions on issues. Highly argumentative individuals view arguing as an intellectual challenge and as an exciting com- petitive situation that allows them to display to others how communicatively skillful they are.

People low in argumentativeness often feel uncomfortable about arguing before, during, and after the event that calls for argument. They fre- quently lack the motivation, desire, and skill to argue across most situations and generally avoid talking about controversial issues because it makes them uncomfortable. Those low in argumentative- ness can even hold negative beliefs about arguing. Individuals can also be moderate in argumenta- tiveness. There are three types: conflicted, apa- thetic, and neutral.

Conflicted feelings often cause moderates to be highly emotional when it comes to arguing; they can feel compelled to argue due to their level of competitiveness yet be highly anxious about argu- ing due to their fear of failure. Apathetic-moderate argumentatives tend to be low in emotion when it comes to arguing yet feel little to no anxiety about engaging in an argument. Neutral-moderate argu- mentatives normally argue only when they see some good coming out of it and feel that they have a good chance of winning.

Destructive Aggressive Communication

There are two destructive forms of symbolic aggressive communication: hostility and verbal aggressiveness. Hostility is exhibited in interper- sonal communication when people use messages to express irritability, negativity, resentment, and sus- picion. Irritable communicators usually have quick tempers, show little patience, are moody, and appear exasperated when things go wrong for them. Negative communicators typically express a great deal of pessimism, display little cooperative effort, and often are antagonistic toward authority, rules, and social conventions. Resentment is expressed through jealousy and brooding about perceived slights, either real or imagined. Suspicion is communicated by distrust of others.

Verbal aggressiveness is defined as the tendency to attack the self-concept of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of com- munication. These attacks most commonly take the form of character attacks (e.g., “You’re a liar and a cheater!”), competence attacks (e.g., “You can’t do anything right” or “You’re a lousy lover”), teasing, ridicule, profanity, maledictions (i.e., wishing someone harm, as when we say to someone, “Drop dead”), background attacks, attacks on physical appearance (“Your nose looks like a pig’s nose”), threats, and nonverbal behav- iors (e.g., raising the middle finger in the “up yours” gesture, sticking out the tongue, rolling the eyes).

The essential difference between argumentative- ness and verbal aggressiveness is in the locus of the attack. In argumentativeness, the attack is on the adversary’s position on the controversial issue; in verbal aggressiveness, the attack is on the adver- sary’s self-concept. For example, one spouse sug- gests purchasing a vehicle made by an American manufacturer. The other disagrees, stating “American cars depreciate much more quickly than Japanese vehicles.” This constitutes an example of an argumentative response. Stating, “American cars stink, and you’re an idiot for wanting to waste our money buying one” would constitute a verbally aggre ssive response and one that is potentially des- truc tive to the relationship. Verbally aggressive beha- vior is more common in exchanges in which the consequences are very meaningful to those involved.

Causes of Verbal Aggressiveness

Several reasons have been offered for the develop- ment of the verbal aggressiveness trait: psychopa- thology (repressed hostility or neuroticism), disdain for the other person, social learning of aggression, and argumentative skill deficiency (i.e., not pos- sessing the skill and ability to generate constructive arguments during a conflict). Communication scholars have suggested a fifth cause of verbal aggressiveness—the inherited trait explanation. This explanation suggests that verbal aggressive- ness can be an expression of temperament. That is, some people are born with a set of biologically determined temperaments that are relatively con- sistent throughout their lives, of which verbal aggressiveness is one.

47Asian Communication Theory

Individuals high in verbal aggressiveness have been found to view competence attacks, character attacks, maledictions, nonverbal emblems (i.e., gestures which take the place of words), ridicule, and threats as less hurtful than do those who are low in verbal aggressiveness. Many individuals high in verbal aggressiveness reported several rea- sons for being verbally aggressive, such as trying to appear tough, rational discussions’ degenerating into verbal fights, wanting to be mean to the other person, and wanting to express disdain for the other. In another study, it was observed that highly verbally aggressive individuals often perceive that their verbal aggression is justified.

Consequences of Constructive and Destructive Aggressive Communication

The most fundamental conclusion that has been reached by the vast amount of research conducted on aggressive communication over the past quarter of a century is that most outcomes of argumenta- tiveness are constructive, while most outcomes of verbal aggressiveness are destructive. Several ben- efits have been associated with argumentativeness. First, argumentativeness can enhance perceived credibility. Argumentativeness has been related to credibility because of the assumption that higher levels of the trait may indicate more skill in arguing and reasoning. Research has revealed that more skillful advocacy, refutation, and rebuttal behav- iors frequently indicate greater competence in com- munication. High argumentatives are more likely than low argumentatives to be seen as leaders in groups. Argumentativeness has also been associ- ated with higher levels of self-esteem, especially perceptions of personal power and competence.

Recall that a skill deficiency in argument has been suggested as one explanation for verbal aggressiveness. That is, when individuals are low in motivation to argue and lack the skill to gener- ate arguments during conflict, these deficiencies can lead to verbal attacks being directed to another person’s self-concept instead of his or her position on controversial issues. Verbal aggression has been suggested as a catalyst for physical aggression. Thus, being high in motivation and skill in argument may reduce the likelihood that this cycle will result because skilled and motivated arguers are better able to direct a verbal attack

toward their adversary’s position, and not their self-concept.

Andrew S. Rancer

See also Conflict Communication Theories

Further Readings

Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–460.

Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.

Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L., & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69.

Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Horvath, C. L. (1996). Feelings about verbal aggression: Justifications for sending and hurt from receiving verbally aggressive messages. Communication Research Reports, 13, 19–26.

Rancer, A. S. (1998). Argumentativeness. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 149–170). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rancer, A. S., & Nicotera, A. M. (2007). Aggressive communication. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication (pp. 129–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ASIAN COMMUNICATION THEORY

Asian communication theory refers to the body of literature covering concepts and theories derived from the rereading of Asian classical treatises, non-Eurocentric comparisons, East–West theoret- ical syntheses, explorations into Asian cultural concepts, and critical reflections on Western the- ory. This entry will begin with a definition of

48 Asian Communication Theory

Asian communication theory and then will exam- ine Asian communication theory in relation to the seven communication traditions that Robert Craig elucidated in 1999: rhetorical, semiotic, phenom- enological, cybernetic, sociopsychological, socio- cultural, and critical.

Definition

The three words constituting Asian communica- tion theory need clarification because each word contains multiple meanings. Although geographi- cally Asia includes the Middle East, Central Asia, and eastern Russia, Asian theory focuses primarily on the great philosophies of India and China and the cultures of the region between them. Asian communication theory adds to the different mean- ings of communication, and it conflicts with the positivist view of theory, which is an artifact of Western science. Asian theory emphasizes systems, groups, networks, and the macro approach and is therefore more akin to philosophy, which cannot be easily tested in the Western scientific manner.

These different approaches to communication and theory result in an Asian worldview that dif- fers from the West’s in its premises about self, nature, space and time, knowledge, and the trans- personal. Johan Galtung summarizes these differ- ences as follows:

The West emphasizes individualism; the East emphasizes the reciprocal responsibility between individual and society. The West emphasizes control of nature; the East emphasizes harmony with nature. The West looks at a world divided into center (West), periphery (West’s allies), and outer periphery (all the rest); the East looks at the world and universe as a single unit (an interconnected and interdependent whole). The West sees bounded time; the East sees infinite time. The West sees knowledge in terms of atomism and deductivism (and uses these fragments to engender contradiction-free theoretical frameworks following Newtonian science); the East sees knowledge in terms akin to systems theory such that axiology (values), epistemology (knowledge), and ontology (metaphysics) all become essential parts of theorizing.

The West subordinates humans to a supreme being; the East places faith in following the path of righteousness—dharma in Buddhism and Hinduism, yi in Confucianism, and the nondivine Supreme Reality in Daoism.

Asian Theories Within Western Traditions

Robert Craig divided the field of communication into seven traditions on the basis of underlying conceptions of communicative practice. Although designed to organize Western theories, these tradi- tions can reflect East–West differences and are used in the following discussion to classify various Asian theories.

The Rhetorical Tradition

Rhetoric (study of principles and rules of compo- sition formulated by ancient critics and of writing or speaking as a means of communication or per- suasion) has a long history traceable to Greek soph- ists (c. 600 BCE). Communication scholar Robert T. Oliver failed to see any paradigmatic examples of Asian rhetoric that are compact enough to be subjected to a thorough analysis. However, Steven Combs was able to derive a unique model of Chinese rhetoric from a rereading of the ancient Daoist texts.

Chinese Rhetoric

Antonio S. Cua attempted to formulate a Confucian rhetoric on the lines of the Aristotelian model. Cua concluded that a society that values harmony and tolerance could not be expected to embrace the values of debate and persuasion. In his study of Xunzi’s moral epistemology, Cua asserted that the ethics of a Confucian rhetoric arose from the background notions of li (propri- ety), yi (righteousness), and jen (benevolence).

Combs, however, contends that Daoism—as explicated in the classics Dao de jing (attributed to Laozi), Zhuangzi (by Zhuangzi), and Art of War (attributed to Sunzi)—offers no explicit definition of rhetoric or an inventory of rhetorical canons inasmuch as Daoists do not think of rhetoric as a distinct subject although their overall philosophy on language and communication (rhetoric) shows spontaneity and creativity. The concepts Dao (Way/Path/Supreme Reality), de (efficacy/virtuality),

49Asian Communication Theory

yin–yang (passive energy–active energy) polarity, ziran (natural way), harmony, and wu–wei (action- less action) are key components of Daoist rhetoric.

Laozi thematizes the need to avoid contentious- ness and unnatural verbosity. Laozi uses two negative methods (negation and paradox) and two positive methods (analogy/metaphor and vague expressions) for communicating Daoism. The outstanding rhetorical strategy that Zhuangzi uses is evocativeness, intended to draw others into interactive communication aimed at engendering self-persuasion. Evocativeness differs from Aristotle’s enthymeme and Kenneth Burke’s iden- tification and adds a vital element to Western rhetorical theory. Zhuangzi uses parables cre- atively to go beyond the limitations of language; he introduces the readers to the essential unity of the Dao, the errors of making distinctions or pass- ing judgments, wu–wei, and the natural way of things. Sunzi’s underlying strategic principle in Art of War, when applied to persuasion, is the rhetoric of parsimony, which has three key atten- dant principles: knowledge, strategy, and respon- siveness. Sunzi, who upholds the Daoist principle of avoiding conflict, says that justification for war must be made on the basis of harmony. Sunzi’s rhetoric is also comparable at times with Western rhetorical concepts such as presumption and iden- tification. Combs asserted that the genre of Daoist rhetoric has the potential to provide a lens for viewing the limitations of current Western rhe- torical theorizing.

Indian Rhetoric

Western scholars have often used the term Asian rhetoric in a pejorative sense because of the alleged Indian preference for form (e.g., exaggera- tion, embellishment) over substance. However, communication scholars have yet to reread the 550 Jataka (Rebecoming) stories of the Buddha or the hymns of the four Vedas (sacred knowledge), the 108 Upanishads (philosophical commentaries on the Vedas), or even the Bhagavadgita (the Song of God extracted from the Mahabharata epic) to derive a genre of Indian rhetoric.

The rhetoric of India, in both its Hindu and its Buddhist forms, has an ethical basis. The Hindu rhetorician seeks aretaic qualities (virtues)—those by which the individual may fully represent the

traditions of family, community, and caste—while the Buddhist rhetorician values truthfulness, com- passion, and conciliation.

Reasoning is an aspect of rhetoric. Bimal K. Matilal claims that India’s dharma tradition evolved through an attempt of a rational criticism of itself. Stories in the epics and the puranas men- tion Carvaka’s use of tarka or hetusastra, the sci- ence of reasoning, to ask questions and challenge the validity of Vedic rituals.

Nagarjuna, the 2nd-century Buddhist philosopher, used logic to show that nothing in the phenomenal world had full being and all was ultimately unreal. Therefore, every rational theory about the world would be a theory about something unreal evolved by an unreal thinker with unreal thoughts. Western communication theory has failed to examine com- munication through the critical lens of Nagarjuna because of the undercurrents of Orientalism and Eurocentrism.

The Semiotic Tradition

John Locke’s language theory, explicated in An Essay on Human Understanding, published in 1690, is credited with setting off semiotics as a distinct tradition of communication theory. Pragmaticism and linguistics, reflected in the cur- rent theories of language, discourse, interpretation, nonverbal communication, culture, and media, are contemporary areas of study that rely on the semi- otic tradition. Semiotics defines communication as intersubjective mediation by signs.

Chinese Semiotics

Asian communication scholars have yet to develop comparable semiotic theories. However, elements of a distinct theory of Chinese semiotics are reflected in the communication pattern of those who make use of the Chinese ideographic system of writ- ing, which entails the interpretation of symbols—itself a semiotic exercise. Despite the mutual unin telligibility of the spoken language systems and the very differ- ent language stocks in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, all of East Asia during the Tang dynasty adopted the Chinese ideographic system that the Japanese called kanji (hanja in Korean and hanzi in Chinese). Because kanji are inextricably tied to a particular set of ideas, unlike the letters of an alphabet, the use of kanji throughout East Asia created an “empire

50 Asian Communication Theory

of ideas”—a powerful glue that bound the region together.

Moreover, the Yijing (Book of Changes) system— with the basic yin and yang signs that make up bigrams, trigrams, and hexagrams (various word combinations)—could be considered a semiotic masterpiece. It dates back to the 12th century BCE. The Ten Commentaries for the understanding of the Yijing were written in the 3rd or 4th century BCE. The philosophy of Chinese semiotics is an explicit manifestation of the metaphysics implicit in the signs or forms (xiang). Chung-Ying Cheng points out that the Yijing incorporates four functions—in- terpretative, integrative, practical, and ingraining— that define a system of communication.

Indian Semiotics

Rhetoric can be looked at as the branch of semi- otics that studies the structures of language and argument mediating between communicators and audiences. The Indian theories of syntax and seman- tics are clear Asian contributions to this tradition.

Panini, the author of Astadhyayi (probably written in the 5th century BCE), explicated the structure of a natural language (Sanskrit), which enabled the Nyaya-Vaisesika school of Indian phi- losophy to work out the theory that puts meanings closest to the syntactic form of words. Bhartrhari, the 5th-century Indian philosopher of language who wrote the treatise Vakyapadiya, described thought as a unitary thing that fractured and altered form as it passed into words, interacting with other factors in the mind and the speaker’s environment to produce intricate displays of sound and fragmented meaning.

The Phenomenological Tradition

Phenomenology is the study of consciousness from first-person perspective. It views communica- tion as dialogue or experience of otherness. Martin Buber explicates that dialogue is based on the experience of authentic, direct, and unmediated contact with others. The description of the phe- nomenon of consciousness is the objective of phenomenology as evident in the three main cate- gories of phenomenological thinking—essentialist (Edmund Husserl), ontological (Martin Heidegger), and existentialist (Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty).

The phenomenological tradition has a degree of consonance with Asian communication philosophy. Buddha often adopted the dialogic form to experi- ence otherness, as testified in Jataka stories. The phenomenologists’ focus on the centrality of lan- guage in human interaction, not as a mere means for conveying thought, but as constituting thought itself, resonates with Indian philosophy. The con- cepts of the structure of consciousness and the com- municative environment are central to Asian verbal or nonverbal communication (e.g., Japanese kuuki [atmosphere requiring compliance] and ishin- denshin [communication without language]).

In a reader edited by Alexander Macfie, Reinhard May has documented the East Asian influences on Martin Heidegger’s work, and Irene Eber has documented dialogist Martin Buber’s considerable interest in Daoism. Heidegger’s concept of Dasein is believed to have been inspired by the Daoist concept of das-in-dem-Welt-sein (to be in the being of the world), used in The Book of Tea by Okakura Kakuzo to describe Zhuangzi’s philosophy. Heidegger himself had contacts with some leading Japanese intellectuals of the Kyoto School. More- over, convergent phenomenology has combined Husserl’s phenomenological concept of transcen- dental ego with 8th-century Indian philosopher Sankara’s concept of the primacy of self-conscious- ness. Thus, major aspects of phenomenology show links to Asian communication theory.

The Cybernetic Tradition

Modern communication theory emerged with the cybernetic tradition in the mid-20th century featuring the works of scholars like Claude Shannon, Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and Alan Turing. This tradition includes current theories as diverse as systems and information science, cogni- tive science and artificial intelligence, functionalist social theory, network analysis, and the Batesonian school of interpersonal communication.

Asian communication theory is remarkably congruent with the systems approach of the cyber- netic tradition. First, both systems theory and Asian philosophy emphasize the whole because the whole has the attribute called emergence, which the parts lack (although sociologists and econo- mists differ on this point). Second, both accept the epistemological/ontological phenomenon of

51Asian Communication Theory

part–whole interconnection and interdependence, although postmodern systems theorists prefer to emphasize the system–environment interdepen- dence. Third, both tend to agree on the inevitabil- ity of change in the light of the arrow of time, its direction toward infinity. Because of the dynamic behavior of every phenomenon, no predictions are possible; only probabilities can be worked out.

The Buddhist paradigm of dependent co-arising (paticca samuppa-da) and the Chinese Yijing para- digm reflect these characteristics. The first illus- trates the dynamic operation of all dependent co-arising factors to produce any given phenome- non. It rejects the linear independent–dependent dichotomy inherent in the Newtonian paradigm, which tends to imply the existence of permanent factors. The second illustrates how unity gives rise to a multiplicity of co-arising positive (yang) and negative (yin), interconnected and interdependent factors (bigrams, trigrams, and hexagrams) that evolve within the bounds of unity (system). It affirms the Chinese philosophical thesis that every- thing consists of the unity of opposites.

The Sociopsychological Tradition

This is the tradition dependent on social psychol- ogy, a development of the past century, that theo- rizes communication as a process of expression, interaction, and influence that may occur through face-to-face or through technological mediation from one to one, one to many, or many to many. Most of communication science falls into this tradi- tion, as exemplified by the experimental persuasion studies of Carl Hovland, as well as the voting stud- ies of Paul Lazarsfeld and Bernard Berelson.

Although much of Buddhist philosophy relates to psychological phenomena, endogenous Asian communication theories befitting this tradition are scarce except as appendages to Western theories, mainly because of the testability requirement of science as conceived by the West. However, prin- ciples of persuasion (discovered and synthesized through the Yale experimental studies) were used in China by lobbyists (e.g., Su Qin and Zhang Yi) during the chaotic half millennium from the 8th to the 3rd century BCE. The Asian contribution to the sociopsychological tradition needs more sys- tematic investigation to enable East–West synthe- sis. This tradition in the West has come under

criticism for excessive individualism, inattention to macro social forces, and insensitivity to cultural differences.

The Sociocultural Tradition

This tradition, which owes its intellectual inheri- tance to sociology and anthropology, theorizes communication as a symbolic process that pro- duces and reproduces shared sociocultural patterns. Media are explicated as environments. Although this tradition views the existing sociocultural order as largely a reproduction of our everyday interac- tions, it also recognizes the creative process that adds to those interactions. Two poles have emerged within this tradition: structural theories that expli- cate relative stability of macrolevel patterns and interactionist–interpretive theories that explicate microlevel patterns of social-order creation.

The sociocultural tradition agrees with the Asian and Buddhist view that individuals are products of their social environments; the Confucian view that groups develop particular norms, rituals, and worldviews and the idea that that social change can be difficult and disruptive; and the Daoist view that attempts to intervene actively in social processes often have unintended consequences. The Buddhist and Daoist philosophies also emphasize the inevita- bility of change. However, because this tradition is another Western creation, the endogenous Asian contribution has yet to be documented.

The Critical Tradition

Although this tradition has ancient historical roots, the modern Western tradition of critical social theory is claimed to run from Karl Marx through the Frankfurt School to Jürgen Habermas. Alternatively, one could also include other strands of late Marxism and post-Marxism, current theo- ries of political economy, critical cultural studies, feminist theory, and related schools of theory asso- ciated with new social movements (such as postco- lonial theory and queer theory).

Normative media theories, which facilitate the critique of existing media systems, can also fall within this tradition. Cultural and media imperial- ism theory, dependency theory, and world-systems analysis are exemplars of the contemporary critical tradition.

52 Attachment Theory

Daoism anticipates a great deal of the contem- porary critical tradition, particularly postmodern- ism as reflected in the views of Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault, as well as of Jacques Derrida and other poststructur- alists. Daoism, like postmodernism, denies objec- tive foundations for knowledge, essential meanings of identities, and universal truths and deprivileges reason and rationality. For example, Daoist sage Laozi contends that universal statements are impossible because words, which are finite and temporal, cannot express what is infinite. Therefore, communicators must resign themselves to the con- ditionality of their discourse or try to express themselves by using means other than words.

Asian communication theory includes a substan- tial contribution to this tradition, as exemplified by the works of scholars such as, among others, Guo-ming Chen, Wimal Dissanayake, Shelton Gunaratne, Satoshi Ishii, and Yoshitaka Miike. They reflect the influence of critical metatheories of Edward Said (Orientalism), Samir Amin (Euro- centrism), Farid Alatas (academic dependency), and others.

Shelton A. Gunaratne

See also Buddhist Communication Theory; Chinese Harmony Theory; Confucian Communication Theory; Hindu Communication Theory; Indian Rasa Theory; Informatization; Japanese Kuuki Theory; Taoist Communication Theory; Traditions of Communication Theory

Further Readings

Cheng, C.-Y. (1988). The I Ching as a symbolic system of integrated communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 79–104). Singapore: Amic.

Combs, S. C. (2005). The Dao of rhetoric. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.

Cua, A. S. (1985). Ethical argumentation: A study in Hsun Tzu’s moral philosophy. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

Davis, L. (1988). Deep structure and communication. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: The Asian perspective (pp. 20–38). Singapore: Amic.

Galtung, J., & Vincent, R. C. (1992). Global glasnost: Toward a new world information and

communication order? (pp. 30–38). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Gunaratne, S. A. (2005). The Dao of the press: A humanocentric theory. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Gunaratne, S. A. (2008). Falsifying two Asian paradigms and de-Westernizing science. Communication, Culture & Critique, 1, 72–85.

Kincaid, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Macfie, A. L. (Ed.). (2003). Eastern influences on Western philosophy: A reader. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Miike, Y., & Chen, G.-M. (Eds.). (2007). Special issue: Asian contributions to communication theory. China Media Research, 3(4), 1–111.

Oliver, R. T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

ATTACHMENT THEORY

Early notions of attachment in close relationships were first proposed in 1969 and again throughout the 1970s in an attempt to give insight into the development of intimacy and closeness among humans across early stages of the life span. John Bowlby can be said to have initiated this area of study when he broadened his conceptualization of the bonding and attachment processes to extend beyond just those experiences of infants; his book, Attachment Theory, became one of the more widely used theories of intimacy in relationships. With Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver’s 1987 extrapola- tion of Bowlby’s original ideas to include romantic dyads, attachment is now one of the most often used variables in adult romantic relationship research. The major tenets of this theory include not only the explication of attachment across the life span but also the development of specific attach- ment styles with predictive and explanatory power. These attachment styles are seen as having specific utility in both relationship processes and outcomes.

Infant Attachment

Early attachment research focused on one’s earliest interpersonal experiences. During infancy, humans begin to develop what may eventually become

53Attachment Theory

lifelong patterns of interdependence with one another. This interdependence (typically described as an intertwining of lives, leading to mutual influ- ence and reliance) is often seen as an interpersonal response that has evolved through natural selection processes. Indeed, the earliest attachments are enacted through proximity-seeking behaviors; the cries or grasping of infants are an adaptive response to an otherwise uncertain world, ensuring protec- tion from a caregiver and the resulting survival that such security affords. Over time, the responsive caregiver becomes the object of the infant’s pri- mary attachment bond as the child relies on that person as a source of comfort or security. As a result of this attachment, infants will typically turn to the primary caregiver in times of distress or uncertainty. The amount of reliance on a caregiver is moderated by the individual experiences of the infant; a child who has experienced sensitive, warm, responsive, and/or consistent caregivers tends to have stronger attachment bonds with those caregivers. A child experiencing a distant, cold, unavailable, or incon- sistent caregiver is believed to have weaker or unhealthier attachment bonds with that caregiver.

Adolescent and Adult Attachment

While early attachment figures are typically caregiv- ers providing for the physical and/or safety needs of an infant or young child, attachment bonds are also formed throughout adolescence and adulthood. Just as infants turn to caregivers in times of distress or uncertainty, adolescents and adults tend to turn to a specific individual when they need affirmation related to security, closeness, or intimacy. This attachment bond is typically characterized by an enduring affiliation with an attachment figure through both good and bad episodes in the relation- ship; the bond is often so enduring that perceptions of grief and loss often occur if the affiliation is some- how severed. Obviously, adolescent and adult attachment bonds are not limited to caregivers, since those relationships likely occur with decreasing fre- quency throughout adolescence and early adult- hood. Adult attachment bonds have been found to occur in close relationships such as close friendships, sibling relationships, parent–child relationships, and even the occasional patient–therapist relationship.

The strongest attachment bond that adults may experience, however, is the pairing between romantic

partners. Much like other attachment pairings, one’s pattern of relating within adult romantic relationships is heavily influenced by one’s early relational experiences. Scholars have long argued that the manner in which one forms an attachment bond with one’s early caregivers sets up a style of interact- ing and relating within romantic relationships that continues over the course of the life span. These com- posite styles of interacting and relating comprise an attachment pattern that often predicts and explains one’s relational style.

Attachment Patterns

While the study of attachment formation across the life span offers broad generalizations about the creation and maintenance of close relation- ships, there are many individual differences that may lead to a wide range of attachment-related behaviors. Scholars have distilled the broad range of individual attachment behaviors into four dis- tinct patterns; while these four categories have great conceptual utility, it must be understood that attachment-related behaviors are not inher- ently categorical in nature.

Secure Attachment

The secure pattern of attachment is character- ized by a strong sense of self-worth. Individuals displaying a secure pattern of attachment typically view others as worthy of trust, and these individu- als are typically quite comfortable with both close- ness and intimacy in their significant relationships. Because they often attribute positive character traits to attachment figures, secure individuals are confident in their relational status and are typically found to rate quite high on the four key relational characteristics of commitment, trust, interdepen- dence, and satisfaction. The romantic experiences of a secure individual are generally characterized by positive emotional affect and mutual friend- ship. The secure pattern of attachment can be characterized by the useful memory tool that I am OK and you are OK too.

Preoccupied Attachment

As compared with the secure pattern of attach- ment, individuals displaying the preoccupied

54 Attachment Theory

pattern of attachment (occasionally referred to as the anxious–ambivalent pattern of attachment) are often characterized by a weak sense of self-worth. While preoccupied individuals do exhibit a com- fort with closeness and intimacy in their significant relationships, an underlying theme of feeling unworthy of love or affection causes an excessive dependence on closeness or intimacy that can be taken to an often uncomfortable extreme. These preoccupied individuals fear abandonment from their attachment figures and typically overmonitor their relationships with these figures. The romantic experiences of a preoccupied individual are gener- ally characterized by emotional extremes and have low levels of trust and satisfaction as a result of the fear of abandonment from their relational partner. The preoccupied pattern of attachment can be boiled down to the useful memory tool that I am not OK but you are OK.

Dismissive Attachment

The dismissive pattern of attachment is charac- terized by individuals with not only a high level of self-worth, but also an equally low level of trust for other individuals. While these individuals are not fearful of intimacy-related behaviors, they do tend to avoid making the significant attachments in which these intimacy-related behaviors are most likely to occur. Dismissive individuals often deni- grate the importance of attachment and downplay their previous rejections or negative experiences with attachment figures. As a result, the preoccupa- tion with avoiding intimacy often leads to romantic experiences characterized by a discomfort with closeness, minimal intimacy and intimacy-related behaviors, and displays of distancing behaviors toward their romantic partner. The dismissive pat- tern of attachment can be boiled down to the useful memory tool that I am OK but you are not.

Fearful Avoidant Attachment

The fearful avoidant pattern of attachment is characterized by both avoidance of intimacy and anxiety about forming attachments. Fearful avoi- dant individuals have the same weak sense of self- worth as do preoccupied individuals; the difference is that they avoid, rather than cling to, those indi- viduals who serve as attachment figures. While

fearful avoidant individuals may actually crave intimacy and attachment, the overwhelming fear of rejection negates their willingness to form those bonds in which closeness may occur. As such, they have an aversion to behaviors associated with inti- macy (e.g., disclosure, touch, and affection) except in those situations where rejection is unlikely to occur (e.g., in caring for older people). The fearful avoidant pattern of attachment can be described by the useful memory tool that I am not OK and you are not OK.

The bulk of attachment research focuses on the similarities and differences between the affective, cognitive, behavioral, and social attributes of indi- viduals displaying each of the aforementioned four attachment patterns. Because one’s attachment pattern is often determined through survey meth- ods or observation techniques at a single point in time, or at multiple times during a particular stage of one’s life, it must be noted that some scholars argue that the stability of one’s particular attach- ment pattern over the course of the life span has not been sufficiently empirically demonstrated. As relationship experiences influence one’s attach- ment behaviors, it is entirely possible that attach- ment patterns may shift in subtle ways throughout the course of one’s life.

Attachment Patterns and Relational Attributes

Much research has been done on the relationship between one’s attachment pattern and the rela- tional attributes that one experiences in one’s social world. While scholars often describe attach- ment patterns as causing many of the following specific relational outcomes, it must be noted that attachment patterns are typically studied using quasi-experimental methods and cannot empiri- cally demonstrate causality with full confidence. Additionally, the attachment patterns of one’s relational partner likely influence the expression of one’s own attachment pattern; also, partner choice may be influenced by the intimacy-related behav- iors of that partner and therefore depend on the partner’s attachment pattern.

Relationship Quality

Much research has demonstrated the robust finding that secure individuals are generally more

55Attitude Theory

likely to report higher quality relationships, with elements of trust and positive affect. For relation- ships that are not securely attached, men are often most dissatisfied with their relationships because of low comfort with closeness (dismissive and fear- ful avoidant men), while women are most dissatis- fied with their relationships because of high anxiety (preoccupied and fearful avoidant women).

Relationship Stability

While individuals with a secure pattern of attachment often report the highest relationship quality, a secure pattern of attachment is not the only predictor of relationship stability. As expected, research tends to report relatively stable relation- ships for secure individuals; unexpectedly, the relationships of preoccupied women and fearful avoidant men have also been found to be quite enduring, despite ratings of low relationship qual- ity and negative affect.

Disclosure

In research scrutinizing how personal communi- cation within relationships is affected by one’s attachment pattern, secure individuals are found to exhibit the most skilled communicative abilities; secure individuals report a high amount of disclo- sure and a wide variety of disclosure topics for both relational partners and relative strangers, a finding reified using observational research tech- niques. Dismissive and fearful avoidant individu- als, however, have a low level of disclosure amount and demonstrate less flexibility of disclosure in similar situations. Preoccupied individuals exhibit a slightly more complex pattern of communication within their relationships; while typically disclos- ing at a high level, preoccupied individuals are relatively inflexible in disclosure topic across a wide range of situations. Both secure and preoc- cupied individuals consider themselves capable of eliciting disclosure from others within a conversa- tion, while dismissive and fearful avoidant indi- viduals are relatively unlikely to report that same ability to elicit disclosure from others.

In summary, attachment theory argues that one’s early relational experiences have a significant impact on one’s manner of navigating one’s social world. Infant caregivers provide one of the earliest

forms of social interaction in the human experience and may help socialize individuals about how to manage their social and interpersonal relationships. Building on their early experiences, individuals develop their own relatively stable manner of inter- acting with significant others, including the devel- opment of conceptualizations about trust, affection, closeness, and other intimacy-related behaviors. The expressions of these individual differences often group into one of four general attachment patterns, which in turn may influence both process and outcome variables related to how one acts within many close or romantic relationships.

Jonathan M. Bowman

See also Communication Across the Life Span; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Relational Development

Further Readings

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 163–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (2000). Attachment and close relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 185–201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ATTITUDE ACCESSIBILITY THEORY

See Cognitive Theories

ATTITUDE THEORY

Attitude has been a difficult concept to define adequately, primarily because it has been defined

56 Attitude Theory

by so many, but also because of the word’s differ- ing lay uses and connotations. Since the early 1900s, a number of theories have been developed to provide a framework for the attitude–behavior relationship that would provide explanatory and predictive information. Research on attitudes has been consequently popular in many disciplines. A key historic root for the fascination with the term is found in psychology’s interest in individual dif- ferences and the need for scientists to find a con- cept that could name and explain a consistency in individual behavior across a variety of situations.

More specifically, throughout the history of social psychology, the concept of attitude has played a major role in explaining human action, viewing attitudes as behavioral disposition. In fact, Gordon Allport, one of the founding figures of personality psychology, claimed 60 years ago that attitude probably is the most distinctive and indis- pensable concept in contemporary American social psychology. One of the earliest definitions of atti- tude was proposed in 1918 by William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, who defined it as a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influ- ence on the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related. A more recent definition by Philip Zimbardo and Michael Leippe proclaims attitude as an evaluative disposition toward some object, based on cognitions, affective reactions, behavioral intentions, and past behav- iors, that can influence cognitions, affective responses, and future intentions and behaviors. In short, attitudes are learned predispositions to respond—they serve to provide direction to subse- quent actions.

The key issue for theories and explanatory models is the notion of the origin of attitudes. In other words, why do people have attitudes? By and large, research has proposed four main reasons. First, attitudes help organize and simplify a com- plex environment and thus facilitate understand- ing of the world around us. Second, attitudes protect our self-esteem by helping us to avoid unpleasant truths because they direct us to com- ingle with those who share our own worldviews. Third, attitudes make our environment more pre- dictable as they trigger an existing repertory of reactions toward a set of attitude objects. This saves us from having to decide each time what the

proper reaction or behavior should be. Finally, attitudes allow us to express some aspects of our individual personality or fundamental values.

Early studies seemed to confirm the validity of unidimensional effects of attitudes on behavior. Findings, however, such as the one by the social scientist Richard LaPiere’s classic study, raised doubts about this assumption as it provided some evidence that people’s verbal reports of their atti- tudes might not be very good predictors of their actual behavior. By the late 1950s, a multicompo- nent view was adopted, and attitudes were viewed as a complex system comprising a person’s beliefs about an object, feelings toward the object, and action tendencies with respect to the object.

Modern cognitive psychology maintains that attitudes are the result of four components: (1) affective responses, (2) cognitive responses, (3) experiences of past behavior, and (4) behavioral intentions. The latter two are sometimes combined into a single component called behavior. The first component consists of a person’s emotional response to a situation, object, or person (e.g., pleasure, anxiety). The second one is conceptual- ized as a person’s factual knowledge of a situation, object, or person. The third component is related to how often a person had engaged in a certain behavior or been exposed to a certain situation or person in the past; that is, what kind of experience the person had collected about a situation, object, or person. The fourth component involves a per- son’s plans to behave in a certain way when faced with a particular situation, even if these ideas are never acted on. These four components of attitude produce an organizing framework of the attitude construct known as cognitive schemata, which guide the information processes related to atten- tion, interpretation, and recreation of a stimulus.

Given that attitudes are composed from various forms of judgments, unlike personality, attitudes are expected to change as a function of experience. While the concept of attitudes played a central role in the development of attitude measurement and scaling techniques before World War II, postwar research was dedicated primarily to theoretical and empirical issues in attitude change as a result of army-sponsored research to study the persua- sive effects of propaganda during the war. As a result of the celebrated work at Yale University in the 1950s and 1960s by Carl Hovland, who found

57Attitude Theory

that attitudes can be changed through persuasion, a host of theories of attitude formation and atti- tude change emerged.

The most common classification of attitude theories into (a) behavioristic/learning theories, (b) consistency theories, (c) social judgment theory, and (d) functional theories will be used as an orga- nizing framework here.

Behavioristic/Learning Theories

These theories were developed during the 1950s and 1960s, a time when learning theories reflected behavioral psychology. A major commonality of these theories was their emphasis on the stimulus characteristics of the communication situation. Leonard Doob, for instance, saw attitudes as an implicit, mediating process, an intervening variable between an objective stimulus and an overt response. As such, laws of attitude formation can be looked on in a parallel fashion to laws of classi- cal conditioning. Furthermore, attitudes are learned through reinforcement or congruity. If an action has been highly regarded in the past, attitude toward it will likely be strengthened. Carl Hovland and his associates in the Yale Communication Research Program were a major driving force behind the emphasis on learning theories of atti- tude change. They proposed that opinions tend to persist unless an individual undergoes some new learning experience. The Yale researchers empha- sized the role of incentives for change to occur. Incentives were broadly defined as ranging from direct financial or physical benefits to more abstract forms such as knowledge gain, social acceptance by respected others, or self-approval from the feel- ing that one is right.

Following the radical behaviorism ideas of B. F. Skinner, Daryl Bem developed a self-perception theory that attributed attitude change to an obser- vation of one’s own behaviors and conclusions about what attitudes must have caused them. The theory’s main assumptions reflect the viewpoint that attitudes are learned as a result of previous experience with the environment since a person depends on outside cues to tell him or her how to feel internally.

Finally, Arthur Staat’s work on attitude forma- tion has the most immediate connection to behav- iorist thinking, especially the ideas of classical

conditioning. According to his arguments, emo- tional responses in an individual are created by events in the environment. As new stimuli are con- sistently paired with old stimuli (events), the new stimuli develop the power to create an emotional response in the individual. For instance, since words and objects are often paired with particular events, those words and objects evoke affective responses.

Consistency Theories

The basic assumption of cognitive theories is the need of the individual for consistency. There must be consistency between one’s various attitudes, one’s various behaviors, and one’s attitudes and behaviors. A lack of consistency causes discom- fort, so an individual attempts to ease the tension by adjusting attitudes or behaviors in order to maintain homeostasis, that is, achieve balance or consistency again.

One of the earliest consistency theories was the balance theory, developed by the Austrian psy- chologist Fritz Heider, whose work has been related to the Gestalt school. This theory looks at the relationship among three things: the perceiver, another person, and an object. Relationships are either positive or negative, based on the cognitive perceptions of the perceiver; these result in four balanced and four unbalanced configurations. Since unbalanced states are recognized as being unstable, perceivers attempt to restore balance by changing their attitudes toward either the object or the other person. There have been a variety of extensions to Heider’s balance theory.

One important extension was the theory of cog- nitive consistency, developed by Robert Abelson and colleagues. Cognitive consistency suggests that people will try to maintain consistency among their beliefs and make changes (i.e., accept or reject ideas) when this does not occur. In other words, if a liked object helps attain other liked objects, attitudes are consistent. However, if a liked object hinders attainment of other liked objects, there is inconsistency. When inconsistency exceeds a certain level of tolerance, attitudes will change to achieve consistency. For example, if a person who adheres to certain social values and also wants to vote for a particular candidate is presented with the fact that people who usually

58 Attitude Theory

vote for this candidate have opposite social values, the person will either reject this proposition or change his or her attitudes about voting for the candidate or about holding on to the social values. As such, the theory suggests four additional modes of restoring balance besides changing one’s atti- tudes: (1) denial, (2) bolstering, (3) differentiation, and (4) transcendence.

In 1957, Leon Festinger developed his cognitive dissonance theory. This theory focuses on conse- quences of incompatibility between two related cognitions. Since dissonance occurs when elements are logically or psychologically inconsistent, it motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance and return to consonance by avoiding situations or information that may increase dissonance.

One of the major criticisms of consistency theo- ries is that there are too many of them. Today, interest in consistency theories has diminished sig- nificantly as a result of the progress made in social psychology to better understand the processes that consistency theorists investigated, namely, the interactions between attitudes, beliefs, actions, and behavioral intentions.

Social Judgment Theory

Social judgment theory, developed by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues, is different from other con- sistency theories for two reasons: First, it argues that a receiver interprets or judges how much a message agrees or disagrees with his or her own attitude. In other words, it is an attempt to apply the principles of judgment to the study of attitude change. Second, the theory maintains that a mes- sage receiver’s involvement in the topic of the per- suasive message, that is, how important a topic is to a listener, is an important factor in attitude change.

Social judgment theory has been called by some more of an approach to studying attitudes, not a complete theory. Overall, it is based on the use of analogy, whereby an individual’s initial attitude serves as an anchor for the judgment of related attitude communications. An advocated position is evaluated against this point of reference and is placed on an attitudinal continuum from accep- tance via noncommitment to rejection. The amount of attitude change or whether change occurs at all depends on the discrepancy within the self—only

after a communicated opinion falls within the lim- its of the range of acceptance will it affect attitude change. Thus, the greater the difference between the initial opinion and the communicated opinion, the greater the attitude change will be. This theory further argues that the level of ego involvement in a topic depends on whether the issue arouses an intense attitude; that is, individuals who are highly involved in an issue are more likely to evaluate all possible positions, therefore increasing the anchor- ing property of their initial attitudes and broaden- ing their range of rejection of a communicated opinion. Thus, a persuader facing a highly involved receiver may be able to advocate safely only a small change.

Since most other approaches deal only margin- ally with previous attitudes, social judgment theory has obtained an important place in the research literature. Recently, however, researchers have questioned the basic principles of social judgment theory and how the theory’s principles relate to one another.

Functional Theories

Functional theories of attitude entered the litera- ture in the 1950s when researchers developed the idea that attitudes served varying psychological needs and thus had variable motivational bases. A common and central theme of these early efforts was the listing of the specific personality functions that attitudes served for individuals. The idea is that people strive for goals and will adjust their attitudes to meet those goals. By and large, these theories are expanded argumentations of the origi- nal question about why individuals hold attitudes, discussed above. The most basic assumption of functional theories is that the key factors for atti- tude change are the relationships between events and information in the environment, on one hand, and the individual’s values pattern and motives, on the other. It is the match or mismatch of those two forces that leads either to assimilation of the incoming information (i.e., attitude change) or to rejection of it.

The American psychologist Daniel Katz dis- cussed four functions that attitudes perform for the personality: instrumental/utilitarian (the maxi- mization of rewards and minimization of penalty from the environment), ego defensive (a protection

59Attitude Theory

from uncomplimentary truths about the self), value expressive (the expression of pleasure derived from basic values), and knowledge function (a need to understand and predict the environment). He argued that in order for attitude change to occur, there must be an inconsistency between the need being met by the attitude and the attitude itself. Changing an attitude, then, requires knowl- edge of what function an attitude performs for a person since the function that attitudes perform provides a frame of reference for comprehending and categorizing objects, persons, and events.

A related theory—Herbert Kelman’s functional analysis—looked at social relationships that occur in social influence situations. He looked at three processes of opinion change: compliance, identifi- cation, and internalization. Those processes are closely related to the three roles or relational rea- sons of attitude change: power, attractiveness, and credibility of the source. Compliance results in only a surface-level attitude change in order to receive a favorable reaction from another power- ful person or group. This attitude is usually expressed only when the other person is present. For instance, members of a group headed by a strong leader usually openly agree with that lead- er’s choices regardless of whether they hold the same attitude toward a topic. The attitude change resulting from identification occurs both publicly and privately but does not become part of the per- son’s value system. The change is dependent on the relationship with the source but not with the source’s presence. An example would be the asserted identification with an attractive celebrity that can wane quickly once more important events overshadow this relationship. Attitudes that are internalized become part of an individual’s value system. This usually occurs when a believable sender of a message convinces a receiver of the legitimacy of an idea to the extent that it becomes the receiver’s idea henceforth.

Inoculation theory, developed by social psy- chologist William McGuire in 1961, is primarily concerned with the function of resistance to change; that is, it aims to explain how to keep original attitudes and beliefs consistent in the face of persuasion attempts. The main argument of the theory is that most attitudes are established in an environment that does not expose the individual to counterarguments and attack on the new attitude.

Therefore, the individual has little chance to develop resistance to possible future attacks. The theory argues that to prevent attitude change from occurring, it is necessary to strengthen preexisting attitudes. There are two key components to suc- cessful inoculation. The first is threat, which pro- vides motivation to protect one’s attitudes. The second component is known as refutational pre- emption, which is the cognitive part of the process. It is the ability to activate one’s own argument for future defense and strengthen existing attitudes through counterarguing. This theory is loosely related to conflict theories, in which new informa- tion also presents a challenge to existing attitudes, and individuals are forced to seek alternative actions.

Many assessments of attitude theories argue that functional theories are in the mainstream of attitude research, and their theoretical approaches remain conceptually relevant to investigators because of their breadth and unique focus on the functional bases for attitudes. Functional theories are uniquely qualified to provide a link between the behavioral theories proposed during the 1950s (consistency theories, behavioral/learning theories, and social judgment theories) and the processing and cognitive themes of more recent theorizing (e.g., theory of reasoned action, social learning theory, transtheoretical model).

Summary

Attitude research is a major area in which theory building has been characteristic of the research. These theories, especially the functional theories discussed last, have provided guidance for many applied areas in communication. As an example, these theories have been invaluable for research on media effects and strategic communication as they led to the development of recommendations for the design of persuasive messages delivered by media and commercial advertisers.

Olaf H. Werder

See also Advertising Theories; Cognitive Dissonance Theory; Cognitive Theories; Co-Orientation Theory; Inoculation Theory; Learning and Communication; Media and Mass Communication Theories; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Reasoned Action Theory; Social Judgment Theory

60 Attribution Theory

Further Readings

Allport, G. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204.

Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: The process of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.

Kiesler, C., Collins, B., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: Wiley.

Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment, assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Boston: Badger.

Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.

Zimbardo, P., & Leippe, M. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social influence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

ATTRIBUTION THEORY

To make sense of the world, people develop expla- nations about what is happening and why people are acting certain ways. When people are interact- ing with others, communication decisions are influenced by the implicit theories, or attributions, of the participants. Ineffective communication may be partly a consequence of the parties’ idio- syncratic inferences and incompatible interpreta- tions. Attribution theory provides a framework for understanding how people explain their own and others’ behavior. This entry reviews the attribution

process and examines the importance of attribu- tions for determining success or failure, for man- aging conflict in interpersonal relationships, and for determining people’s stigmatizing attitudes and discriminatory behaviors. It ends with information about the fundamental attribution error and the self-perception theory.

An important basis of attribution theory is that people behave the way they do for a reason. In other words, people have reasons for developing their impressions of others. Fritz Heider, one of the first researchers to write about the attribution pro- cess, was interested in how one person develops an impression of another. These impressions, he argued, are developed through a three-step pro- cess: (1) observation of behavior, (2) determination of whether the behavior is deliberate, and (3) cat- egorization of the behavior as internally or exter- nally motivated.

Attribution Process

When a person encounters someone, how he or she interacts with that person is, in part, determined by his or her interpretation of the other person’s behavior. Internal attributions, which are also called dispositional attributions, occur when an observer infers that another’s behavior was caused by some- thing about the person, such as personality, atti- tude, or upbringing. External attributions, or situational attributions, occur when the observer ascribes the cause of the behavior to the situation or outside circumstances. For example, Daniel’s room- mate Tom rushes into the house, slams the door, throws his books on the table, and runs upstairs. Tom does not say a word to Daniel, and Daniel wonders about what is happening. Daniel can develop different explanations for Tom’s behavior. If he attributes Tom’s behavior to an internal factor, he might think that Tom is rude and inconsiderate. If he attributes Tom’s behavior to external factors, he might conclude that Tom is late for an appoint- ment and rushing to get things done. Daniel’s attri- butions will affect how he interacts with Tom when they next encounter each other. Based on Daniel’s internal attribution, he may ignore Tom when Tom comes down the stairs. However, if Daniel selects an external attribution, then when Tom walks down the stairs, Daniel may ask whether Tom needs anything. Daniel’s attribution affects his

61Attribution Theory

actions, and his actions can affect how the room- mates manage their interaction and relationship.

Before Daniel decides whether to attribute Tom’s behavior to dispositional or to situational factors, he needs to examine a few other factors. Harold Kelley, a social psychologist specializing in personal relationships, proposed that there are three general guidelines that influence people’s attributions: con- sensus, consistency, and distinctiveness.

Consensus describes how other people, in the same circumstances, would behave. If all Daniel’s roommates tend to rush into the house and run upstairs, then Tom’s behavior is likely determined by the situation, leading Daniel to make an exter- nal attribution. If Tom is the only one who behaves this way, Daniel is more likely to make an internal attribution.

Consistency refers to whether the person being observed behaves the same way, in the same situa- tion, over time. If every time Tom entered the house he behaved this way, Daniel would likely make an internal attribution. However, if this was an unusual way for Tom to behave, Daniel would likely look for an external explanation.

Distinctiveness refers to the variations in the observed person’s behavior across situations. If, for example, Tom rushed through the door at work and ran through the hallways at school, his behav- ior on entering his house would not be distinct from his normal behavior. In that case, Daniel would likely attribute it to internal, dispositional causes. Conversely, if in most situations, Tom was mellow and slow moving, Daniel might attribute his rush- ing behavior to external, situational causes.

Although each of these three factors is impor- tant for attributing cause to either internal or external factors, when an observer can combine these factors, patterns can emerge. For example, when a person behaves a certain way over time and across situations, but others do not behave the same way, people tend to make dispositional attri- butions (That’s just the way she is). However, when someone’s behavior is not typical of that person or expected in the situation, observers have a difficult time attributing cause to the person or the situa- tion. In these cases, the observer tends to assume that something peculiar is happening (I don’t know what’s going on; something must be wrong).

In addition to the three factors Kelley originally identified, two more guidelines influence whether

an observer makes an internal or external attribu- tion. If a person violates a social norm, behavior that is typical or expected for a situation, others tend to make internal attributions. Additionally, in the absence of situational cues, observers tend to make dispositional attributions.

Attribution theory provides a framework for understanding both our own and others’ behav- iors. It provides guidelines for interpreting actions, so it is useful for examining motivations for achievement and conflict in interpersonal relation- ships. This theory has also been used to examine stigmatizing behavior and discrimination.

Attribution and Achievement Bernard Weiner extended attribution theory to how people explain their own and others’ success and failure. He contends that interpretations of achievement can be explained with three dimen- sions of behavior: locus of control (Whose fault is it?), stability (Is it ongoing?), and controllability (Can I change it?). First, a person’s success or fail- ure is attributable to either internal factors (I am a smart person) or to external factors (My computer crashed). Second, the cause of the success or failure can be either stable (It’s always going to be like this) or unstable (This is a one-time event). Finally, the event may be perceived as controllable (I can change this if I want to) or uncontrollable (Nothing I do can change this situation).

These three dimensions, together, create eight scenarios that people use to explain their own achievements and disappointments:

1. Internal-stable-uncontrollable (I’m not very smart)

2. Internal-stable-controllable (I always wait until the last minute)

3. Internal-unstable-uncontrollable (I felt ill) 4. Internal-unstable-controllable (I forgot about

the assignment) 5. External-stable-uncontrollable (The teacher’s

expectations are unrealistic) 6. External-stable-controllable (The teacher hates

me) 7. External-unstable-uncontrollable (I was in a car

accident) 8. External-unstable-controllable (The dog ate my

homework)

62 Attribution Theory

Understanding how to motivate students to achieve academically requires an understanding of their attributions. People’s explanations for their own success or failure will help determine how hard they work in similar situations. Students who perceive that their successes and failures are controllable are more likely to continue to work hard academically. When people perceive that they have no control over a situation, believe that the situation is permanent, and think that the out- comes are due to their own characteristics, they are likely to stop working and may exhibit signs of learned helplessness.

Attributions and Interpersonal Conflict

People tend to choose conflict styles based on their attributions about their partner’s intent to cooper- ate, the locus of responsibility for the conflict, and the stability of the conflict. Their attributions about these issues influence the strategies they adopt; specifically, they tend to adopt conflict management strategies they believe are congruent with their partner’s projected responses. The attri- bution process causes people to see others as more competitive, more responsible for the conflict, and more stable and traitlike than they perceive them- selves to be. They underestimate the role of unsta- ble situation factors and overestimate the extent to which behavior is caused by stable personality traits. The bias in this process often discourages integrative modes of conflict resolution. The choice of conflict strategies affects the likelihood of con- flict resolution and the degree of satisfaction in the relationship.

Attributions and Stigmatizing Behavior

Attribution theory is an important framework for understanding why people endorse stigmatizing attitudes and engage in discriminatory behaviors. A person’s attributions about the cause and con- trollability of another’s illness or situation can lead to emotional reactions that affect their willingness to help and their likelihood of punishing the other. If you assume that another person’s difficult situa- tion is that person’s fault and could have been prevented, you may be less likely to offer assis- tance and more likely to react with anger. For example, Sue is an office manager and Terry is a

new employee. If Sue thinks that Terry’s unortho- dox and unpredictable behavior is caused by inju- ries he suffered when he was a child, she may be tolerant and understanding. If, however, Sue thinks Terry’s unorthodox behavior is the result of years of illegal drug use, she may be more likely to get angry with him and take punitive actions. People’s attributions about the causes of another’s illness can lead to prejudice and discrimination.

Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error is a common attribution error in which people overemphasize personality or dispositional (internal) causes of others’ negative behavior or bad outcomes and underestimate the situational (external) factors. When interpreting another’s positive actions or outcomes, however, people overemphasize the situ- ational causes and underestimate the dispositional causes. For example, Alicia is a server in a restau- rant, and one of her coworkers, Julia, just got a really big tip. Alicia thinks to herself, “Wow, Julia keeps getting lucky because the hostess keeps giv- ing her the good customers.” An hour later, another coworker complains that he got a bad tip, and Alicia thinks, “Well, if you weren’t such a crappy server, you would get good tips.” Alicia just committed the fundamental attribution error. She assumed that when something bad happened to one coworker, it was the coworker’s fault and that when something good happened to another coworker, it was the situation that brought about the positive result.

Conversely, the self-serving bias (or actor– observer bias) is an error in which individuals attri- bute their own success and failure to different factors. One’s own success and positive outcomes are attributed to internal, dispositional characteris- tics whereas one’s failures or negative outcomes are ascribed to external, situational causes. To continue the restaurant example, Alicia gets a really big tip and thinks, “I worked really hard for that group and gave great service,” but when another group leaves a bad tip, she thinks, “They are cheapskates.”

In sum, attribution errors work in the following ways:

When good things happen to me, I deserve it ( I worked hard or I am a special person).

63Audience Theories

When good things happen to you, you don’t deserve it (the teacher likes you or you just got lucky). When bad things happen to me, it’s not my fault (the teacher doesn’t like me or he started it). When bad things happen to you, it’s your fault (you should work harder or you should be more careful).

Self-Perception Theory

Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory, like attribution theory, relies on internal and external attributions to explain behavior. However, instead of observing others, we use the same process to interpret our own behavior. Bem argues that we come to know our own thoughts and beliefs by observing our actions and interpreting what caused our behav- iors. Our explanation for our behavior is deter- mined by the presence or absence of situational cues. For example, if Debbie earns $100 cam- paigning for 3 hours for a politician, she can attri- bute her behavior to external causes (“I did it for the money”). If, however, Debbie earns only $5 for her 3 hours of campaigning, she will likely attri- bute her behavior to internal causes (“I did it because I like the candidate”). Self-perception theory is important in persuasion research because people who are internally motivated are more likely to maintain behaviors.

Virginia M. McDermott

See also Cognitive Theories; Conflict Communication Theories; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Learning and Communication; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

Further Readings

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–6). New York: Academic Press.

Corrigan, P., Markowitz, F., Watson, A., Rowan, D., & Kubiak, M. A. (2003). An attribution model of public discrimination towards person with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 162–179.

Graham, S., & Folkes, V. S. (1990). Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attributions in social interaction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Manusov, V., & Harvey, J. H. (2001). Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sillars, A. L. (1981) Attributions and interpersonal conflict resolution. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 281–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

AUDIENCE THEORIES

Audience theories have been of crucial importance for the way mediated communication has been understood since the first modern communication theories were formulated almost a century ago. They have followed the changing scientific cli- mates and successive intellectual fashions in the social sciences and humanities, affecting both the different ways in which communication processes have been conceptualized and the ways in which succeeding scholarly traditions have researched them. In recent years, the concept of audience has been put into question as the emerging digital, interactive media appear to be blurring the deep- rooted distinction between media production and media consumption that has characterized the era of mass media.

The main theoretical difficulty with the concept of audience is that it is a single term applied to an increasingly diverse and complex reality. The term has thus come to comprise many shades of mean- ing gathered around a common core. This core denotes a group of people being addressed by and paying attention to a communication message that someone is producing and intending for them to perceive, experience, and respond to in one way or another.

64 Audience Theories

The range of meanings for audience includes, on one hand, the idea of a group of spectators gathered in the same physical location for a per- formance of some kind on which their attention is focused. On the other hand, an audience can be the dispersed, anonymous individuals who in the privacy of their home attend simultaneously or with a time delay to the content offered by a par- ticular mass medium.

Another distinction within the concept of audi- ence has to do with the power distribution between the content producers and the users of mediated content. Media can be divided into three types, according to Jan Bordewijk and Ben Van Kaam. Until the 1980s, the audiences of classic transmis- sion media such as radio and television had control over neither content production nor reception: They could be reached only when the broadcasters chose to transmit centrally produced messages to them, which they then passively consumed. The audiences of consultation media such as print, on the other hand, actively choose when to access the centrally provided content and what content to access. Finally, conversational media rely on a communicative relationship characterized by the genuine, dialogical coproduction of meaning in which the roles of sender and recipient alternate.

Another definitional question is whether audi- ences are a politically active public or a more pas- sive and private group. A public in this connection has been defined as a collectivity mobilized by inde- pendently existing cultural or political forces (such as a political party or a cultural interest group) and being served by media provided by this public for itself. More traditionally, audiences have been regarded as a domestic, passive, and politically impotent collectivity, totally defined by and depen- dent on media provisions, often of an entertainment- oriented nature. However, as a consequence of the increasing “mediatization” of all aspects of modern life and the undeniable participatory qualities of the culture of media convergence, the American scholar Henry Jenkins and many others have proposed that the binary opposition of audiences and publics should give way to a conceptualization that recognizes their potential interdependence.

These identifiable audience definitions have been identified with various successive scientific paradigms in the social sciences and humanities.

This entry summarizes several of the most impor- tant of these.

The Hypodermic Needle Theory

The first audience theory that gained large-scale importance was metaphorically labeled the theory of media as a hypodermic needle. It not only was a product of the ruling behaviorist scientific cli- mate in the 1920s and 1930s but also sprang from contemporary political and cultural concerns. According to the hypodermic theory, a mediated message could be seen as something injected under the skin of the recipient. Media effects were thus seen as direct, immediate, and strong. The emer- gence of this theory was a direct consequence of the emergence of the new broadcasting technology of radio, which made it possible for the first time to simultaneously reach the ears of all consumers and citizens in a nation. The Nazi leaders’ use of radio for blatant propaganda purposes, as well as the more democratically motivated use by U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt of radio addresses to the nation, gave rise to widespread concern that it would become possible for those in power to transform the citizens into mere puppets.

At the same time, the hypodermic needle theory was inspired by influential sociological theories that the modern mass-society individual was lonely, vulnerable, and easily manipulated. The critical/ cultural theories of the Frankfurt School were also influential; these scholars argued that the new cul- tural industries were functioning under a capitalist logic that would ideologically seduce and deceive the subordinate classes, through fascinating but mindless entertainment, into accepting conditions that would impoverish their life opportunities.

This notion of defenseless audiences has contin- ued, though in less crude form, to influence the understanding of processes of mediated persuasion as many advertising and public information cam- paigns are still based on a strategy that seeks to change the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals by exposing them repeatedly to mass- communicated stimuli. Similarly, this understand- ing of audiences also continues to frame widespread concerns over the effects of violent visual represen- tations in television and computer game fictions on the vulnerable minds of children and young people. While the label hypodermic needle is

65Audience Theories

extremely evocative, Everett Rogers and Roger Storey have admonished us that it is actually a label applied after the fact to capture the widely shared understanding of audience processes to which scholars were constructing an alternative. This alternative has become known as the two- step model of communication.

The Two-Step Flow Theory

The two-step flow theory arose out of some large- scale empirical studies in the United States in the 1940s, conducted by a team of researchers directed by the exiled Austrian scholar Paul Lazarsfeld, who found that both consumers’ choice of prod- ucts and voters’ choice of politicians depended more on their interpersonal relations to significant others in their networks of family and friends than on their direct exposure to mass-mediated commercial or political messages. A campaign was thus found to influence its audiences as a result of the complex interrelations between a mass- mediated endeavor and the subsequent interper- sonal process in which the campaign message got talked about in human networks. The label two- step flow was adopted because the studies found that the mass-mediated message would, as a first step, reach individuals with above-average promi- nence in their community—so-called opinion lead- ers. If the message succeeded in passing these gatekeepers’ filters of relevance and importance, they would then spread the message to more dependent individuals in their immediate sur- roundings (second step). This theory was supported by the fact that mass-mediated campaigns often were found to have minimal and indirect effects.

The two-step flow theory, while encapsulating a fundamental truth about the communicative con- ditions of processes of social change, has been criticized for conceptualizing these processes in a much too mechanistic manner. Sven Windahl and Benno Signitzer have argued that we should rather see mediated processes of influence in terms of a multistep model of communication. It is possible to see Everett Rogers’s immensely influential the- ory of the diffusion of innovations to different groups of audiences (divided into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and lag- gards, depending on the speed with which they are likely to adopt innovations, both in the form of

new products and in the form of new ideas) as such a more developed theory.

Another alternative suggests the emergence of viral communication, in which the overly mecha- nistic idea of steps is abandoned altogether. Here, the channels through which communication spreads will have to be represented in a sophisticated model of intersecting personal networks, existing in the sea of discourses of the “mediatized” society.

Uses-and-Gratifications Theory

The next milestone theory of audiences, uses-and- gratifications theory, takes audience empowerment one step further by exploring what people do with the media. The key idea of uses-and-gratifications theory is that the uses that audiences make of the media and the gratifications produced by those uses can be traced back to a constellation of indi- vidual psychological and social needs. Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch, three of the founding fathers of the theory, described how its 7-point platform wishes to account for how (1) the social and psychological origins of (2) needs gener- ate (3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential patterns of exposure to the media, resulting in (6) need grati- fication and (7) other consequences.

The media-oriented needs were typically described as the needs for information, relaxation, companionship, diversion, and escape, and the gratifications were characterized in identical terms—a practice that some uses-and-gratifications practitioners themselves acknowledge to be some- what circular. Among the basic assumptions of the theory was the idea that both media and content choice are consciously and rationally made and directed toward quite specific goals and satisfac- tions and that individual utility is more important for media consumption than are values springing from familial or peer group rituals.

Audience Reception Theories

Reception research focuses on the ways in which audience members make sense of mediated mean- ings. It thus deviates from the mechanistic notion that media messages are merely transmit- ted to an audience whose understanding of those messages is unproblematic, and it insists that

66 Audience Theories

the audience’s actualization of mediated meanings must be the object of empirical investigation. Methodologically, reception research has, until recently, adhered rather strongly to the doctrinaire view that only qualitative methods such as depth inter views and ethnographic observation are suit- able tools for such exploration.

Reception research is explicitly interdisciplinary and—unlike the previous theories, which are based exclusively in the social sciences—attempts to cross-fertilize scholarship from the social sciences and the humanities. In a catchphrase, it has been claimed that reception research takes its theory from the humanities and its method from the social sciences.

The theoretical platform thus comprises meaning- oriented theories with hermeneutic origins, such as semiotics and discourse theories, whereas the methodological platform is constituted by field- work methods developed within the social sci- ences. The pioneering practitioners can be charac- terized as renegades from these two backgrounds who were dissatisfied with the prescribed practices of the parent disciplines: Researchers from the humanities were revolting against analyses in which claims about ideological effects on audi- ences were made on the basis of inferences drawn from textual analysis. Social science scholars were escaping from the straitjacket of quantitative methodologies and the way in which those meth- odologies had narrowed notions of what aspects of the audience were researchable at all.

More specifically, in its early years, reception theory was trying to demonstrate that audiences were semiotically active in their encounter with mediated meanings, as opposed to the widely held view that media consumption, especially television viewing, was a passive, almost soporific condition. Reception theory’s fundamental reconceptualiza- tion of audiences was strongly indebted to the British cultural studies scholar Stuart Hall’s semi- nal theory of the meaning-making complementa- rity of the encoding and decoding moments of media production and the notion that there was no natural fit between these two moments. In other words, audience members had a relative freedom to interpret the encoded meanings offered to them in the media text, which was consequently regarded as polysemous (i.e., carrying many poten- tial meanings).

Among the handful of inspiring, lasting concepts proposed by Hall were also the notion of the text’s preferred meaning, or reading, and the three basic ways in which audiences could actualize this pre- ferred meaning. Hall suggested that in the midst of textual polysemy, one meaning would nevertheless hold a privileged position. Since the mass media were firmly lodged within the capitalist social order and therefore logically served the hegemonic interest of the ruling classes, the preferred meaning would be one that conformed to this ideological interest.

Continuing this logic of Marxist cultural the- ory, the class-divided audiences could actualize the encoded preferred meaning from one of three decoding positions: They could follow a dominant reading, in which they conformed to and took over, so to speak, the preferred meaning (for example, agreeing with a news report in which the government urged workers to show wage restraint for the sake of the country); alternatively, they could follow an oppositional reading, in which they would contest the ideological implications of the preferred meaning (for example, refusing to comply with the news report about the need for wage restraint); or they could follow the third option of applying a negotiated reading, which would lie somewhere between the two extremes (e.g., agreeing in overall terms with the news report’s recommended wage restraint but seeing many good reasons to divert from wage restraint in the case of specific social groups).

The particular reading chosen by different audi- ences would depend on their life circumstances, often corresponding to social class position, and on the specific socioculturally anchored interpre- tive repertoires at their disposal for decoding the media. The specific interpretive repertoires mobi- lized would also depend on the situational context in which decoding took place. For example, the specific decoding of a Hollywood movie by a teen- age youngster would depend heavily on whether the movie was watched in the cinema with a group of peers or in front of the family screen with Mom and Dad. The need to explore such social uses of the media empirically was especially pioneered by the American audience ethnographer James Lull in a series of studies of family television.

Finally, empirical fieldwork on audience meaning-making would also lean on the notion of interpretive communities, a concept originating in

67Audience Theories

German and American reception aesthetics based in literary studies. The concept serves to express two different phenomena: first, the idea that the readings of media messages are likely to some extent to follow sociodemographic boundaries of age, gender, ethnicity, and so forth, which may thus be seen as a community in a loose sense of the term (e.g., a music video being read differently by White and African American youth); second, the phe- nomenon of fan cultures, in which members have a strong sense of cultural belonging to a cultural public, with something approaching membership.

The concepts described here have been heavily discussed and contested in the reception theory lit- erature since the 1980s. Therefore today they have become to some extent divested of some of their original, often Marxist, shades of meaning and have assumed the role of more general stock of the trade. This reinterpretation of theoretical concepts has been inspired by a move toward a more holistic conceptualization of audiences within the larger context of the communication process as a whole and away from the compartmentalized research endeavors of the 20th century. The drive toward holism in audience research (as defined by British sociologist David Deacon and his colleagues) is theoretically anchored in the social-constructionist turn in the human sciences, according to which the interdiscursive dimensions of media production and consumption have become a key condition of the mediatized culture. This theoretical develop- ment precedes the emergence of the culture of con- vergence, which in turn has served to corroborate the view that the distinction between media pro- duction and consumption is being elided.

Theories of Collective Creativity

The new digital media enable participation on an unprecedented scale. Individuals may participate in the digital, interactive media proper (the Internet, the World Wide Web, Web 2.0), but because all the old media, such as television and newspapers, have been transformed by digitalization into the com- plex of convergence culture, media users now have opportunities for participating in almost any encounter with any media. This participation includes all three modes of engagement with the media listed at the beginning of this entry: trans- mission, consultation, and conversation.

As yet there is no full-fledged theory of the par- ticipating audience; we have only a rich array of promising theoretical fragments that together make up an incomplete mosaic of this audience. It has been proposed that we may be moving into the age of “disappearing audience,” but as U.S. scholar Henry Jenkins, one of the key analysts of conver- gence culture, warns, it is important that conver- gence raptures do not mislead us into believing that soon there will be no audiences, only participants.

What we have to take into account in our think- ing about audiences of the future is that convergence has to do with the following transformations:

1. The flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences

2. The emergence of a participatory culture, in which media producers and consumers no longer occupy separate roles but become participants who interact with each other according to a new set of logics

3. The development of collective intelligence, when consumer-participants pool their resources and combine their skills in realms where no traditional expertise exists

Since, as Jenkins has admonished us, conver- gence refers to a process, not an end point, schol- ars interested in audiences must continue to devote their energies and resources to the building of new theoretical frameworks that enable us to grasp the thoroughly transformed conditions of audiences.

The Scholar’s Life in the Habitat of Audience Theories

When the history of audience theories is seen in an evolutionary perspective, as has been done here, it is important to realize that the Darwinian meta- phor has its limits: It is not the case that the theo- ries that first appeared in the habitat of audience theories have now become obsolete or even extinct. They continue to live their life, but not “as usual.” Time and again, as new animals have appeared, the older inhabitants have had to adapt to the influ- ence of the newcomers, and they may have moved down in the struggle for dominance. Therefore, in

68 Autoethnography

audience theory today, all the traditions outlined above are still with us, although in mutually modi- fied forms, and they offer themselves for the quali- fied judgment of new scholars entering the field.

Kim Christian Schrøder

See also Computer-Mediated Communication; Critical Theory; Cultivation Theory; Cultural Studies; Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies; Frankfurt School; Interpretive Communities Theory; Journalism and Theories of the Press; Marxist Theory; Media Effects Theories; Network Society; Popular Culture Theories; Public Opinion Theories; Public Sphere; Semiotics and Semiology; Sense-Making; Social Action Media Studies; Spectatorship; Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow; Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency; Violence and Nonviolence in Media Studies

Further Readings

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Jensen, K. B., & Rosengren, K. E. (1990). Five traditions in search of the audience. European Journal of Communication, 5, 207–238.

Livingstone, S. (Ed.). (2005). Audiences and publics: When cultural engagement matters for the public sphere. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.

McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory (5th ed.). London: Sage.

Rogers, E. M., & Storey, J. D. (1987). Communication campaigns. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 817–846). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Schrøder, K., Drotner, K., Kline, S., & Murray, C. (2003). Researching audiences. London: Arnold.

Windahl, S., & Signitzer, B. (1992). Using communication theory: An introduction to planned communication. London: Sage.

AUTOETHNOGRAPHY

The intellectual value of the personal in academic research has long been a debate in communica- tion. From whether to use first person narration in scholarship to the impact of researchers on that which they study, the question of the subjective researching self continues to excite members of

the field as an issue of great significance and con- sequence. At stake for communication theory lies the very worth of the scholarship that researchers publish. On one side of the debate, the inclusion of the personal means giving up the principle and value of objective research, reducing produced knowledge to opinion and hearsay. On the other, the exclusion of the personal perpetuates myths of objectivity that continue to erase the impact of researchers on the knowledge they produce, which obscures the way all knowledge is embedded in cultural and social value systems.

Deeply entrenched in this debate is the narrative- based method of autoethnography, a methodology of academic investigation that not only acknowl- edges the speaking, theorizing researcher but also centers him or her in an effort to illuminate how the experiences of that self are representative of (and in some cases constitutive of) larger social systems. Autoethnographers argue that some ques- tions in communication can be answered only by careful, critical analysis of life experiences. To this end, they take their own self as an entry into cul- ture. Such investigations inform communication theory as a method of theorizing, using the self as the location for that communicative work.

Autoethnography can be described best by con- sidering the two central terms that make up the ground of the method: auto and ethnography. Auto speaks most centrally to the subject (as in the site or location) of the scholarship. As an automethod (like autoperformance or autobiogra- phy), the data and evidence one uses in order to theorize communication lie in the authorial self. Autoethnography examines the lived experiences of the self in order to question and open up one’s experiences to communicative analysis. Stemming from a belief that new knowledge can be gained by communication scholars’ investigating their own communicative lives, autoethnography becomes a mode of scholarship that answers unique questions that deal with the mundane qualities of an indi- vidual’s life. Questions such as how one experi- ences racism or sexism, how minute moments of communication done by a self build larger systems of power, or how privilege or domination is expe- rienced can be answered through autoethnography. It is important that they are self-asked and -answered because only the critically reflexive self can probe deeply into the textures of its life to see

69Axiology

the everyday, ongoing repetitions in communica- tion that produce cultural configurations.

The ethnography in autoethnography is, per- haps, the most significant diversion from other automethods. Ethnography is, most fundamentally, the storying of culture. Autoethnography shares this analytical focus. Thus, any life story may, on some level, count as autobiographical; however, autoethnography requires the link, either directly or implicitly, to the production of cultural systems. A story of how a cultural member experiences his or her disability functions as autoethnography only if the singular story builds an understanding of how disability is understood on a larger cultural level.

Autoethnography’s paradigmatic roots are most closely related to critical theory as often the narra- tives circulate around culture and power, asking how the speaking self is constrained or enabled by its participation in society. As a critical methodol- ogy, autoethnography “stories” the self in order to resist dominant narratives, complicate taken-for- granted ways of thinking, and disrupt normative communication patterns.

Often, autoethnography seeks to see how every- day communication produces cultural norms. That is, autoethnography is a productive way of investi- gating how a self is implicated in maintaining the very structures that we live within (often systems of race, gender, sexuality, and/or class). Of course, autoethnography also understands that the self is a product of culture, as well; in this way, self and culture are co-constructed, each building and sus- taining the other. While other methods can also investigate this phenomenon, autoethnography is a method that allows for a single voice to craft a reflexively textured experience of culture.

Autoethnography, as mentioned in the opening paragraph, often encounters resistance from schol- ars who advocate a more positivistic approach to research. A key point of contention is the role of truth as a goal of research. That is, if the purpose of research is to determine the truth of communi- cative interaction, autoethnography, because it is so narratively constructed, can be critiqued for fictionalizing aspects of lived experience to fit the story the storyteller wishes to tell. In other words, if an autoethnographer tells a story of his or her life, how are we to determine the truthfulness of the claims and experiences being narrated? An autoethnographer seeks not to capture some truth,

but to expose one’s experiences in order to investi- gate how they are produced by (while producing) culture. In this way, the goal of truth as an out- come of research is secondary to tracing, in a reflexive manner, one’s cultural experiences in order to understand how they illuminate commu- nication working in a particular setting.

As a method in communication research, auto- ethnography is a process of theorizing from one’s personal experiences. Whether an addition to more traditional ethnography or a project composed solely in self-narrative, autoethnography works from per- sonal experience to spin a story of culture that exam- ines how an individual’s communicative experiences are representative (or constitutive) of culture.

John T. Warren

See also Critical Theory; Ethnography of Communication; Narrative and Narratology; Performative Writing; Phenomenology

Further Readings

Bochner, A., & Ellis, C. (2002). Ethnographically speaking. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Corey, F. C., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997). Sextext. Text and Performance Quarterly, 17(1), 58–68.

Goodall, H. L. (2000). Writing the new ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Holman Jones, S. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 763–791). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pelias, R. J. (2004). A methodology of the heart: Evoking academic and daily life. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

AUTOPOIESIS

See Cybernetics

AXIOLOGY

Axiology is the branch of philosophy that consid- ers the nature of value and what kinds of things

70 Axiology

have value. The term derives from the Greek lan- guage: axios (worth or value) and logos (study of the nature and properties of, or logic or theory of). Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value, including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiolo- gists are concerned with what is intrinsically valu- able or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily con- nected to ontological and epistemological assump- tions. With respect to human communication theory, every researcher makes decisions in the theoretical process that reflect his or her axiologi- cal position. Axiological decisions guide all facets of research, including the selection of one’s topic and the approach one takes toward research.

History of Axiology

The philosophical study of values dates back to the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. In the democracy developed in Athens, Greece, people sought to acquire knowledge for the purpose of building a successful life. Philosophers recognized that the laws and morality of human society differ from country to country and across historical periods. This awareness led the Sophists to take a relativis- tic, skeptical position on values; they held that one’s values can change rapidly without consis- tency across situations and circumstances. In con- trast, Socrates sought to save Athens from the social disorder purportedly created by Sophists by establishing absolute, universal virtues. Socrates taught that there is an important connection between virtue and knowledge. He held that virtue is an attitude of seeking knowledge and that knowledge is necessary for virtuous conduct. Socrates’ student Plato asserted that there is an unchangeable world of essence behind the changing world of phenomena. Plato identified four virtues— wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice—as characteristics that everyone in the polis should develop. During the Hellenistic–Roman period, the fall of the city–state (polis) rendered useless Greek theories of value that were centered on the state. Philosophers began to emphasize individual- istic ways of living under increasingly unstable social conditions. Individuals became preoccupied with seeking personal safety and peace of mind. During this time, cosmopolitanism, transcending

the bounds of nationality, was enhanced. The Stoic, the Epicurean, and the Skeptic schools of thought dominated this era. The philosophy of the Hellenistic–Roman period culminated in Neoplatonism, a pagan philosophy, which greatly shaped the Christian philosophy that prominently emerged in the medieval period.

During medieval times, Thomas Aquinas argued for the division of religious and natural virtues. He identified as religious virtues the three primary virtues of Christianity—faith, hope, and love. For Aquinas, natural virtues were the four primary virtues of Greek philosophy drawn from Plato— wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. In the modern period, views of value can be seen as extensions or transformations of both Greek phi- losophy and Christian virtues. Philosophers began to distinguish judgments of fact from judgments of value. The task of natural science was to provide judgments of fact (objective propositions). The task of philosophy was to address judgments of value (propositions in which a subjective appraisal of a fact is made). Following that shift, fact and value became recognized as separate issues. The 20th century saw the rise of pragmatism. The sig- nificance of value theory was partially eclipsed with the rise of evolutionary psychology, the dominance of rationalism, advancing skepticism about the place of values in the world, and changes in the modern view of morality. Values came to be regarded as tools for the effective processing of ideas and things. The intellectual division between natural science and philosophy parallels separa- tions that emerged in the study of ontology and epistemology—all of which are interconnected in the development of communication theory.

Axiological Issues in Communication Scholarship

Axiology is often thought to provide ground for the study of ethics and aesthetics; these philosoph- ical fields depend on particular understandings of value. Ethics is the branch of axiology that attempts to understand the nature of morality. Richard Johannesen notes that ethical issues arise whenever one’s behavior could significantly impact another person, when one’s behavior involves a conscious choice of means and ends, and when one’s behavior can be judged by standards of right

71Axiology

and wrong. To develop sound theory, ethical prac- tices must inform one’s choices in all aspects of conducting communication research. In these ways, axiological considerations inform the generation and testing of human communication theory.

Communication theorists strive to contribute to shared knowledge about the nature and function- ing of human communication. Two axiological issues are significant for the development of com- munication theory: first, whether research can be value free, and second, the desired purpose or end for conducting research. For communication theorists, a fundamental concern is with the philo- sophical stability of the research approach. Thinking about axiology at a general level empha- sizes the diversity and incommensurability of the variety of scholarly approaches that have value for us in articulating communication theory.

Values in Inquiry

The first axiological issue for communication theorists addresses the extent to which value-free research is possible. Scholars choose to view a research problem through the lens that they believe most accurately describes the world. Thus, some researchers choose theoretical frameworks that are consistent with a realist ontology, whereas others select to work from a nominalist ontology. An ongoing value debate exists between scholars who adhere to the traditional scientific position and those who take an interpretivist approach to com- munication phenomena.

The traditional scientific position (consistent with realist ontology, empiricist epistemology) on axiology is that good science must be value free. This position asserts that scholarship is neutral and that research and theories are value free. The scholar attempts to uncover the facts as they are without biasing the research by imposing personal beliefs. Scientists carefully observe their object of study without the interference of values. This stance enables researchers to represent accurately the phenomena they are studying. Scholars who work from this paradigm generally use quantita- tive social science protocol to describe and infer regular patterns characterizing a communication phenomenon—whether the theorist is, for exam- ple, studying interpersonal affinity-seeking behav- iors, conducting a content analysis of political

advertisements, or examining small-group cohe- siveness. Most contemporary communication researchers accept that some values inform the research process.

The interpretivist approach (consistent with nominalist ontology, rationalist epistemology) asserts that science cannot be value free and main- tains that values cannot be avoided in conducting research. A researcher’s work is always guided by his or her preferences about what to study and how best to conduct the inquiry. Further, research may be influenced by institutional values as well as political and economic ideologies. These influences make value-free inquiry impossible. Some values are so embedded in a researcher’s culture that he or she may not be aware of them (e.g., a European American Christian patriarchal capitalist perspec- tive). Interpretivist researchers assert that since no method of investigation is completely free of dis- tortion, some groups can provide greater insight into different aspects of the social world than oth- ers can, due to their position within society. Scholars who work from this paradigm may use qualitative social science methods, rhetorical inquiry, or philosophic ideas as a way to gain insight about communication phenomena, regard- less of domain (i.e., interpersonal, small group, organizational, public, or mediated communica- tion) and the specific topic (e.g., conflict manage- ment, social control, group socialization, speaker credibility) under consideration.

Purpose of Inquiry

The second axiological issue for communication theorists addresses the purpose or ends for which scholarship is conducted—whether scholarship should be designed to reveal knowledge (basic research) or achieve social change (applied research). The community of scholars who conduct communication research is not homogeneous, and arguments persist over the value of different meth- ods for providing insight about knowledge claims.

The primary consideration in all research is iden- tifying the purpose for which the inquiry is con- ducted. All decisions related to research flow from a researcher’s purpose(s). There are different stan- dards for judging the quality of different types of research. Various types of research have different expectations, audiences, means of reporting, and

72 Axiology

processes for disseminating conclusions. Because of these differences, the researcher must be clear at the beginning about the purpose of the inquiry.

Basic research seeks to advance knowledge. For basic researchers, the urge to explain the world emerges from their basic human curiosity. Researchers investigate a phenomenon to under- stand the nature of reality with regard to that phenomenon. The purpose of basic research is to understand and explain, to generate knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Basic researchers work to generate new theories or test existing theories. As we find answers to satisfy our curiosity, our knowledge continues to grow, and further ques- tions emerge. For example, answers about inter- personal conflict management may lead to questions about relationship development and dissolution, which may then lead to questions about symbolic integration in long-term relationships, and so forth. Basic research contributes to the fundamen- tal knowledge and theory in each domain and facet of the communication discipline. Basic researchers see their role as producing knowledge about com- munication, whether they are examining how power is communicated and responded to via tech- nology in global organizations or whether they are considering the rhetorical features of a speech. Basic researchers do not hold themselves respon- sible for the ways knowledge is used—their find- ings can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. Communication knowledge thus becomes a tool for technicians and politicians to use as they will. Academicians in a university com- munity are often basic researchers, free to select their research topics and pursue investigations without being constrained by outside forces.

Applied researchers are driven to solve experien- tial problems. They conduct research to identify solutions; their findings are directed toward improv- ing the conditions of an organization or the whole of humankind. Applied research contributes to the knowledge of a discipline by helping people make informed choices about how best to respond to a problem. Applied research is value laden in a vari- ety of ways, including subjectivity and researcher bias in solving problems. For example, research problems may be posed by a company or sponsor- ing agency and require a communication consul- tant or marketing researcher with the best skills to offer a response to the issue. When a researcher is

hired to solve a specific problem, the sponsor usu- ally provides value-laden direction, often identify- ing the research topic, collaborating to assess the problem, and potentially assisting in conducting the investigation. Research problems may also emerge in response to one’s lived experience: A researcher may examine intercultural differences among members in a small group to ensure that productivity is not diminished because of the employees’ communication with one another.

The distinctions between basic and applied research are most often reflected in the motives and conditions under which researchers pursue their investigations. For example, the interpretive-critical debate in cultural communication studies centers around whether scholars should simply describe features of a culture they observe or whether they have an obligation to expose oppressive arrange- ments within the culture. Research should be judged according to the norms of protocol for conducting research as identified by the scholarly community, regardless of the stance the scholar takes toward values in inquiry or the purpose of inquiry. The quality of a research project does not necessarily depend on whether the investigation is commis- sioned to solve a problem or whether the investiga- tion is conducted by an individual researcher who seeks to advance knowledge. In general, the func- tions of research—advancing knowledge and solv- ing problems—are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless of whether one holds a value-laden or value-free approach to research or is conducting basic or applied research, researchers have an axi- ological responsibility to conduct ethical inquiry. Any information to be shared with an audience must reflect professional properties of competent research. Researchers also have a personal respon- sibility to all stakeholders involved in the research, including subjects. In contributing to the advance- ment of human knowledge, a researcher must adhere to ethical principles of research.

Axiology is an important consideration in the development of communication theory. Tracing back to antiquity, philosophers have struggled to identify the nature of value and what kinds of things have value. In general, communication the- orists face two axiological issues: what scholarship is worth pursuing and how best to conduct research to gain that knowledge. In basic research, scholars conduct inquiry to expand what we know

73Axiology

about human communication. In applied research, scholars seek to (re-)solve human problems. Both forms of research co-inform one another and extend our understanding about communication. Operating from varying axiological grounds, ethi- cal scholars enrich our understanding about the value of communication research and theory.

Pat Arneson

See also Critical Theory; Epistemology; Ethics Theories; Inquiry Processes; Metatheory; Ontology; Philosophy of Communication; Realism and the Received View; Social Construction of Reality

Further Readings

Audi, R. (Ed.). (1999). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cheney, G. (2008). Encountering the ethics of engaged scholarship. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 281–288.

Cherwitz, R. A. (Ed.). (1990). Rhetoric and philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

75

BALANCE THEORY

See Attitude Theory; Co-Orientation Theory; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

BARGAINING

See Conflict Communication Theories; Negotiation Theory

BEHAVIORISM

See Communication Skills Theories; Humanistic Perspective; Learning and Communication

BIOLOGICAL APPROACHES

See Communibiology

BLACK FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY

Black feminist epistemology characterizes U.S. Black women’s ways of knowing as distinctive and

significant for developing theories of the social world and for attaining social justice for all oppressed groups. This perspective stresses the importance of Black women’s social locations for how they create and validate knowledge, claiming that their shared experiences can foster group knowledge that can inform political action. It emphasizes the fact that Black women can face multiple, interlocking oppressions of gender and race as well as classism and heterosexism. Moreover, Black feminist epistemology is a type of critical theory because it aims to empower the oppressed to improve their situation. This theory has implications for communication scholarship because it suggests approaches for theorizing ways that members of nondominant groups construct and disseminate knowledge and provides insights into how communication can effect social change.

Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins grounds Black feminist epistemology in broad goals of Black feminism. Black feminism is a political–social movement that arose from feelings of discontent among Black women and their allies due to frus- tration with both the civil rights movement and the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The former neglected gender issues in favor of race, while the latter focused mainly on White, middle- class women’s concerns. Consequently, Black women began to develop theory and initiate polit- ical action related to their struggles with various oppressions, including sexism, racism, classism, and heterosexism. Based on a commitment to social justice for Black women and other oppressed groups, they, along with other women of color,

76 Black Feminist Epistemology

began to propose alternative feminisms. Black feminist epistemology details one of those alterna- tive perspectives.

Black feminist epistemology contends that although Black women have varying experiences due to differences in age, social class, sexuality, or ethnicity, they are subject to the legacy of struggle against racism and sexism. It argues further that experiencing shared challenges fosters similar angles of vision based on distinctive themes of African American women’s experiences, such as work, fam- ily, sexual politics, motherhood, and political activ- ism. These common, collective experiences help develop group knowledge and ways of knowing that Black women share with one another.

Collins asserts that Black women have been socialized to create, sustain, and legitimate knowl- edge in four distinct ways. The first dimension of Black feminist epistemology is lived experience as a criterion of meaning. Collins explains that Black women tend to rely on subjective examples as legitimate sources of knowledge. This criterion refers to the use of narratives and practical images to describe experience as a valid form of knowledge or wisdom. For instance, in a famous speech titled Ain’t I a Woman, to the Ohio Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, in 1851, emancipated slave Sojourner Truth substantiated her claim to an alternative version of White womanhood with a vivid account of her personal experiences.

The second dimension refers to the use of dia- logue in assessing knowledge claims. It claims that Black women tend to engage in dialogue with oth- ers to develop and legitimate knowledge. A principal assumption of this criterion is that connectedness, not isolation and independent thought, is essential for validating knowledge. Collins traces this dimen- sion to African-based oral traditions, noting that this assumption also undergirds some feminist epi- stemological theories. For example, Mary Belenky and her coauthors contend that women are social- ized to seek connectedness.

The third dimension is the ethic of caring, which consists of three components: valuing individual uniqueness, viewing emotionality as appropriate, and developing the capacity for empathy. This cri- terion counters the mainstream ideology of ratio- nality and objectivity as pivotal to creating and validating knowledge. Collins notes that the ethic of caring also resembles both African-based oral

traditions and feminist perspectives on ways of knowing. For example, the latter refers to women’s tendency to value individual personality rather than to seek impersonal sources of knowledge.

The fourth dimension of Black feminist episte- mology is the ethic of personal accountability. As individuals construct knowledge through experi- ence, dialogue, and an ethic of caring, they also must be accountable for their knowledge claims. Thus, this criterion socializes Black women to validate a knowledge claim based on the perceived credibility of the source of that claim. Collins notes that Black women expect individuals not only to have clear positions on issues that they present but also to assume responsibility for substantiating their validity. She states that Black women are more likely to believe knowledge claims of speak- ers whom they respect for their moral character and ethical stance.

Collins observes that when Black women politi- cize these four dimensions and apply them to social projects, they provide a viable framework for Black feminist theorizing and practice. However, she notes that a Black woman’s standpoint and its respective epistemology provide but one heuristic approach for analyzing intersections of multiple oppressions. She rejects theories that declare that Black women have a more accurate perspective on oppression because of their race and gender. Rather, she asserts that members of any groups that embody multiply oppressed identities (e.g., other women of color, men of color, poor White women, and lesbians of color) can provide episte- mological insights. She concludes that the ultimate value of these types of epistemologies is to chal- lenge enduring processes that persons and groups in power employ to produce and validate knowl- edge in order to substantiate their right to rule.

Brenda J. Allen

See also Chicana Feminism; Epistemology; Feminist Standpoint Theory; Postcolonial Feminism; Womanism

Further Readings

Allen, B. J. (1996). Feminism and organizational communication: A Black woman’s (re)view of organizational socialization. Communication Studies, 47, 257–271.

77Bona Fide Group Theory

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.

Houston, M., & Davis, O. (2002). Centering ourselves: African American feminist and womanist studies of discourse. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

BONA FIDE GROUP THEORY

The bona fide group theory, originally developed by Linda Putnam and Cynthia Stohl, identifies a set of theoretical concepts that enable researchers to move away from studying small groups as if they were isolated, decontextualized, and without history and study groups in context. This perspec- tive was first articulated in a special 1990 issue of the journal Communication Studies, in which sev- eral well-known communication scholars called for the discipline to pay greater attention to groups within their natural environments. These scholars argued that groups form the foundation of our social lives, our work endeavors, and our cultural and political experiences. Group commu- nication facilitates or hinders a society’s ability to thrive. After decades of studying small groups as if they were completely distinct from contexts, it was time for communication researchers to move beyond “container models” of group communica- tion. Collectively, they agreed there was a need to have theories and constructs that enable an under- standing of the multilevel, embedded, interpretive, emotional, and rational processes of groups.

Since the early 1990s, several theoretical perspec- tives have emerged that provide richer, deeper, and more nuanced understandings of groups in context. Going beyond functional approaches, researchers have incorporated structurational, interpretive, feminist, critical, and bona fide theories into small- group studies. Bona fide theory has been used to explore communication processes in contexts such as juries, surgical and health teams, environmental collaborations, management boards, community theater, fund-raising, online support, and adoles- cent peer groups. Research methodologies have also become more diverse. Discourse analyses, ethno- graphic studies, quasi-experimental designs, surveys,

and laboratory experiments all have been used to study groups from a bona fide perspective.

Bona fide group theory posits that all groups manifest permeable boundaries and interdepen- dence with context. The theory provides a set of concepts and relationships to explore these essen- tial characteristics regardless of whether groups are experimentally created and manipulated, occur naturally in face-to-face environments, or are com- puter mediated. The bona fide group theory is a nascent theory insofar as a standard set of postu- lates and theorems have yet to be developed. However, over the past 18 years, numerous theo- retical papers and empirical studies have illustrated the ways in which it is a useful and vibrant frame- work for the study of group processes as they emerge and are embedded in larger contexts.

In bona fide group theory, group processes (e.g., decision making, conflict management, socializa- tion of members, information processing) are viewed as shaping and being shaped by these two essential characteristics: permeable boundaries and interdependence with immediate context. A third characteristic, unstable and ambiguous borders, emerges from the dynamic interplay between the first two distinguishing features. This characteris- tic focuses on group identities, especially how they emerge and evolve through the ways that members alter their group’s boundaries and contexts.

By taking these characteristics into account, bona fide group theory enables scholars to under- stand the nature of groupness as constituted across time and space. The theory posits that the genera- tive mechanism of group dynamics is the continu- ous communicative interplay between internal and external environments. These dynamics come together through the negotiation of group bound- aries, the creation of group identities, and the shaping of the essential nature of the group. By focusing on the two essential characteristics, group scholarship is able to detect associations among contexts, group deliberations, and message sys- tems that remained obscured in traditional labora- tory and field research.

The first characteristic, permeable boundaries, challenges the assumption that a group has a fixed location, an existence apart from its environment, and a boundary formed by static, unchanging bor- ders. In traditional studies of groups, boundaries are regarded as given or preexisting structures, and

78 Bona Fide Group Theory

hence the social context is seen as separate from the group. Bona fide group theory is premised on the notion that boundaries are neither previously determined or permanent, nor are they defined by goals, tasks, physical location, or presence of group members. Rather, boundaries are conceived of as socially constructed through interactions that shape group identity; create, reproduce, or sever connections with internal and external environ- ments; live out members’ histories; and reflexively define group process.

Theoretically, the ways in which group mem- bers change, define, experience, and negotiate boundaries are found in the interactive nexus among (a) multiple group memberships and con- flicting role identities, (b) representative roles, (c) fluctuations in membership, and (d) group identity formation. Empirical research suggests a strong association between the ways in which groups manage multiple memberships and over- lapping identities and the effectiveness of the group. If boundaries are too volatile and indistinct, the group risks becoming overwhelmed and losing its identity and focus; if boundaries are too stable and exclusionary, the group often becomes iso- lated, information deprived, and ineffective.

The second major characteristic of bona fide groups is interdependence with immediate context. Group context refers to the dynamic ways in which groups depend on and contribute to their physical, social, and task environments. In most group studies of the past (whether in the field or in the laboratory), context was assigned to the group, control led by the experimenter through laboratory manipulations, or treated as and/or assumed to be a constant. But in bona fide group theory, interde- pendence is a dynamic variable that is reciprocally negotiated as contexts are socially constructed through (a) intergroup and intragroup communi- cation, (b) coordinated actions among groups, (c) negotiations of jurisdiction or autonomy, and (d) ongoing interpretations in which individuals make sense of current and past intergroup relationships.

Interdependence with immediate context consid- ers the degree to which a particular group depends on other individuals and groups to accomplish its tasks and the degree to which other individuals and groups depend on the focal group. Rather than see- ing task dimensions such as complexity, urgency, and accountability as static structural variables that

influence the internal dynamics of a group, bona fide group theory treats these task dimensions as socially constructed activities. Groups may deviate from assigned tasks and actively define what they do and how they do it with little reliance on outside influences whereas other groups may have strong external dependencies. The context shapes and is shaped by a group’s ability to control the decisions the group makes, define its priorities, or develop criteria and alternatives to address the issues it faces. Strong as well as weak external linkages may create communicative dilemmas for the group as it struggles to represent adequately what are inter- preted as relevant stakeholder positions.

Overall, bona fide group theory privileges nei- ther external nor internal relations. Bona fide group theory posits that all groups, whether found in the laboratory or the field, manifest permeable boundaries and interdependence with context. The theory addresses the complex network of commu- nicative processes that influence group action. From the very conceptualization of what a group is to the methods used to study the groups, the theory requires researchers to explore the produc- tion and reproduction of social contexts, social boundaries, and personal and collective identities.

Cynthia Stohl

See also Functional Group Communication Theory; Group and Organizational Structuration Theory; Group Communication Theories; Organizational Communication Theories; Organizational Culture; Organizational Identity Theory; Social Exchange Theory; Symbolic Convergence Theory; System Theory; Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Further Readings

Frey, L. R. (Ed.). (2003). Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248–265.

Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 147–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

79Broadcasting Theories

Stohl, C., & Holmes, M. (1992). A functional perspective for bona fide groups. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 601–614). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

BROADCASTING THEORIES

Broadcasting was undoubtedly the most impor- tant media development of the 20th century. First radio and then television developed into mass media that could command the attention of virtu- ally the entire nation at times. Interestingly, how- ever, communication theorists have—with some notable exceptions—developed relatively few the- ories that are specifically about broadcasting. Rather, most theories deal with media effects. Many of these theories are quite relevant to broadcasting but also deal with effects of other media, such as newspapers. Thus, to review broadcasting theories, one must first understand theories of media effects in relation to broadcast- ing as a medium; then one can examine some of the more specialized theories that are specific to broadcasting.

Theories of Media Effects and Broadcasting

Theories of media effects are predominantly a product of the 20th century. While some isolated studies on the effects of newspapers emerged around the turn of the 20th century, most theories were developed and tested as broadcasting emerged and spread as the dominant form of mass media. Traditionally, scholars consider that the first theo- ries of media effects were working with the power- ful effects hypothesis. Briefly, the hypothesis held that mass media had relatively powerful effects in terms of forming and changing beliefs and that the audience was relatively passive in terms of process- ing messages and accepting them. These concepts became prominent after World War I, when the propaganda used by all sides was eventually seen as a negative phenomenon; Americans began to question whether mass media such as newspapers could be too powerful, convincing people to engage in risky foreign ventures that they might not have undertaken. Harold Lasswell was an influential early figure who also developed the well-known

model of communication: “Who says what to whom in what channel with what effect?” He was the first to study propaganda techniques and thus greatly influenced the study of media in general. Other influential figures on the early powerful effects theories were Edward Bernays (considered the “father” of public relations), Gustave Le Bon (a French theorist of crowd psychology), and John Watson (an important figure in behaviorism).

While we may now overestimate the extent to which early scholars viewed the media as having powerful effects, developments in broadcasting began to raise questions along the lines that the media might be too powerful. The rise of Fascism and Communism both relied heavily on propa- ganda. Hitler used radio and film as key elements of his propaganda policy. For U.S. Americans, the apparently all-too-easy submission of masses of people to totalitarian ideologies brought up queasy feelings about the “dark side” of mass media, espe- cially broadcasting. The famous case of Orson Welles’s radio adaptation of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds, in which many Americans thought that a fictional account of an invasion from Mars was real, further heightened concerns. However, Hadley Cantril, in his study of the event—another mile- stone in mass communication research and one of the first to deal with broadcasting—showed that only a relatively small portion of people panicked; moreover, he was able to show that certain person- ality characteristics and other conditions predicted a panic reaction, which ran counter to the notion of powerful effects. However, it cannot be denied that developments in radio throughout the 1930s con- tributed to fears that broadcast mass media might have become too powerful. On the positive side, Franklin Roosevelt’s use of radio in his fireside chats was an example of the use of broadcasting to unite people around important issues and causes.

The powerful effects model was effectively struck down in the 1940s. Studies conducted by Paul Lazarsfeld and colleagues showed that people’s decisions about political candidates were not much affected by media; rather, people seemed to rely on those closest to them in forming their judgments. This model came to be known as personal influ- ence, and it has also been described as a limited effects paradigm. By this time, radio was in ascen- dance as a broadcast mass medium, used widely for both entertainment and information. Thus,

80 Broadcasting Theories

Lazarsfeld’s studies were seen by some as confirm- ing that media—even broadcasting—were not so powerful that people could not make their own decisions or that democratic pluralism could not survive in an era of mass broadcasting. However, Lazarsfeld also introduced the notion of the two- step flow, in which opinion leaders would be more attentive to messages from the media and would use such information within their own primary social networks. Also, studies of the use of films to moti- vate soldiers during World War II seemed to show little effect. By the end of the 1950s, some scholars were pronouncing the end of communication research. In sum, while radio had been a dominant medium from the 1930s through the 1950s, few scholars had produced research that resulted in radio-specific theories; there was no unified theory of broadcasting. From today’s vantage point, how- ever, we can see that broadcast radio was one of the most important developments of the 20th century, playing a role in all the important political, social, and cultural movements of its time.

Critical Theories and Broadcasting

Before examining theories of broadcasting and media effects as they evolved in the United States after the 1950s, it is instructive to look at critical theories of media, most of which came out of Europe from the 1930s onward. Much European research on media is grounded in or is a response to Marxism. Orthodox Marxist theory held that all cultural phenomena were formed by economic conditions (the so-called base–superstructure argument). However, European scholars, most prominently those from the Frankfurt School, found these formulations too simplistic. Theodor Adorno, a prominent member of the school, did research on radio. He thought that it could induce states near brainwashing. Adorno and others in the Frankfurt School, influenced by their experi- ences with radio, conceived of mass media— especially broadcasting—as a culture industry, in which art had been transformed from expression into a mass-produced product with exchange value. Adorno was most insistent in his belief that mass-produced broadcast radio culture devalued the experience of listening to music.

Other critical theorists continued this line of thinking that broadcasting transforms the

production of stories, art, and culture into a mass- produced commodity. Herbert Marcuse found that media inculcated patterns of one-dimensional thought. However, other Marxist media scholars saw the media as a potential site for ideological struggle. Gramsci’s notion of hegemony permitted such a conception. Later scholars such as Stuart Hall and the Birmingham School continued this line of reasoning as the possibility of differing readings of media were accepted. All in all, these critical approaches were in large part responses to both the technological and the economic struc- tures of broadcasting as institutionalized in the capitalist West. As such, they are theories of broadcasting in the broader sense. Todd Gitlin, an American sociologist, underlined the differences between the American limited effects school and the critical research by pointing out that much American research was done under an administra- tive model, serving the needs of the broadcast media, which in turn served the needs of corpo- rate and political elites. However, American research moved beyond the simple polarity between powerful and limited effects, and broad- casting played an important role.

Later Theories of Media Effects and Broadcasting

After the pronouncement of the death of communi- cation research (by Bernard Berelson), media schol- ars began to offer new theories that addressed concepts of media power that lay somewhere between limited and powerful effects. The theory most directly connected to television (and thus broadcasting) was cultivation, developed by George Gerbner and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania beginning in the late 1960s. Gerbner felt that the many studies of television violence were too focused on trying to show that viewers would imitate violence that they had seen on television. While the hundreds of violence studies that have been conducted are also highly relevant to broad- casting, Gerbner conceived of television primarily as a storytelling medium. Thus, his theory was that viewers of television would be more likely to hold conceptions of the world that were congruent with what they had seen on television. Most famously, because heavy viewers of television would see many instances of violence, Gerbner hypothesized that

81Broadcasting Theories

they would also see the world as a more violent place. He called this phenomenon the mean world syndrome. Cultivation examined many other con- cepts in relation to television. For Gerbner, the importance of television was that it was a broadcast medium, dominating the storytelling industry from the 1950s onward. While other media could poten- tially have had cultivating effects, television was the most important because of its massive reach, a direct result of its broadcast nature.

Another theory that offered a perspective on the effects of media was agenda setting. This theory, also developed in the late 1960s, argued that media might tell people, not what to think, but what to think about. Maxwell McCombs and colleagues showed that the agendas of news organizations (including broadcast news) influenced the agenda of the public. Later developments in agenda setting found that exposure to news could prime audi- ences to receive information in certain ways, and that news frames are also important in influencing how audiences receive and interpret news. While agenda setting can apply to any journalistic medium, many of the studies within this theory have included television news. The power of televi- sion to set political agendas has been recognized since at least the 1960s, and research on agenda setting has confirmed this power time and again.

A third prominent theory of media effects devel- oped after the emergence of television was the spiral of silence. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann argued that public opinion was not just the sum of peo- ple’s individual beliefs. Rather, public opinion was also characterized by people’s beliefs about what others thought. Thus, she argued, people would be less likely to express opinions if they felt that oth- ers did not share that opinion. More important, she argued that people would derive their feelings of whether others shared their beliefs from the media; she called this the media tenor. Since spiral of silence theory was developed from the 1970s onward, naturally the power of television played a role in terms of its ability to portray opinions as normative to large, heterogeneous audiences.

Indeed, most current theories of media effects have been shaped by television’s power to distrib- ute messages to large, heterogeneous audiences. From the 1950s to the 1990s, television’s domi- nance of the mass consciousness was virtually uncontested. Thus, for theories of media effects

that were in one way or another informed by con- ceptions of mass society—a society of disconnected, anonymous individuals—television as a medium represented the apex of mass mediation. In this sense, almost any theory of media effects developed after the 1950s can be seen as a response to televi- sion and thus a theory of broadcasting. Not sur- prisingly, television was seen as a factor in relation to a number of social questions and issues.

Television Research

Most media attract the attention of social critics as the media develop and become important aspects of the culture. This was true of radio, film, popular music, comic books, and most other mass media at various times. However, television seemed to many to be so powerful that it attracted more than its share of criticism and thus the attention of researchers.

Without question, the dominant issue of con- cern has been television violence. In the 1960s, competition among the three broadcast networks resulted in television lineups that were increasingly filled with action–adventures, Westerns, and crime dramas. While such fare would probably seem tame by today’s standards, in comparison with the so-called Golden Age of television (which was characterized by live dramas, quiz shows, variety shows, and similar fare), the new action-oriented lineup was disconcerting to many. The Surgeon General of the United States issued a report in 1972 on television violence, concluding that expo- sure to television violence does result in a number of deleterious outcomes. The government expanded and updated these findings in 1982. Since then, the dominant view has been that television violence does result in negative outcomes such as desensi- tization to violence, imitation of violence seen, and acceptance of violence as a way to solve prob- lems. While violence has always been a part of the storytelling landscape, the advent of television as a broadcast medium meant that violent images could now be seen by everyone at virtually any time, in increased vividness and realism. While the government considered regulating violence, not much has been done besides the establishment of a voluntary rating system by television broadcasters and the introduction in 1996 of the V-chip, which allows parents to block programs that they might deem too violent for their children.

82 Broadcasting Theories

Another concern can be found in television’s portrayal of minorities and other marginalized groups. Of most concern was the fact that televi- sion, especially in its early years, stereotyped groups such as African Americans and women. Research showed that African Americans were much less likely to appear on television programs when compared with their population percentages, and when shown, they were most often portrayed in stereotypical roles, often as either servants or criminals. Women were also shown less frequently, and mostly in “traditional roles,” such as mother, secretary, nurse, and so on. When not shown in those roles, they were shown as objects of desire. Much research from a variety of theoretical per- spectives has shown that these portrayals did mat- ter in terms of how people viewed the marginalized groups. However, television has proven able to adapt, at least partially, to social change. Blacks and women are now shown more frequently, and the range of roles they can inhabit has also broad- ened. A similar phenomenon can be seen in the portrayal of gay men and lesbians. Nevertheless, even with some improvements, there are other groups—such as Latinos and Asians—that remain underrepresented on television, and even the groups that have seen their portrayals increase can still make an argument that the dominant—even hegemonic—White male culture of television still has effects at the societal level.

Despite the demise of the powerful effects view of media, television has been blamed at one point or another for almost every social problem: drug abuse, unhealthy behaviors such as smoking or unhealthy eating habits, poor educational perfor- mance of children, lack of interest or knowledge in political matters, failure to practice safe sex, and so on. In all, thousands of studies have been conducted linking television viewing to a variety of negative effects. Most studies do show effects for the given variables studied, although effects directly attributable to television are almost always small to moderate when demographic and other factors are controlled for. Still, the simple fre- quency with which investigators have looked at television as a cause or symptom of social ills is evidence of the enormous power ascribed to tele- vision in everyday discourse. While researchers may have bypassed the notion of a hypodermic needle or magic bullet that could inject passive

viewers with any desired message, there is little doubt that television has been viewed within soci- ety as the most powerful mass medium ever devised, at least since the 1960s.

Technological Theories of Broadcasting

It is interesting to note that television’s dominance as a mass medium has been challenged—beginning in the 1980s with the rise of cable television and VCRs and more recently with the rise of the Internet. Traditional broadcasting (epitomized by over-the-air broadcasts of television) has lost much of its share to new media. At the same time, watch- ing television—in a variety of forms—is still the most common media activity in which people engage. But the rise of new media points to the fact that the form of a technology, in this case broad- casting, can also have important effects.

Modernization theory, popular in the 1960s and 1970s, argued that developing societies could pass more quickly from traditionalism into a modern state with the infusion of mass-mediated commu- nication. Access to information from mass media would help the Third World bypass stages of development by replacing traditional outlooks with those characteristic of “advanced” capitalist democracies. The theory of diffusion of innova- tions also focused on technologies and their adop- tion as markers of modernity, although this the ory also included interpersonal and community- level communication as important determinants of a society’s move toward modernization. Broadcasting’s technological features—especially its ability to reach illiterate audiences across wide distances—made it a logical candidate for experi- ments in technological innovation for moderniza- tion. The advent of satellite broadcasting made the power of broadcasting as a technology seem even more alluring. Experiments were conducted with the use of television in remote underdeveloped countries, and a variety of nations undertook broad- casting projects—either in radio or television—to advance economic, social, and cultural develop- ment. While there were some successes, critics argued that broadcasting would merely serve to transmit the values of dominant, Western capitalist powers. Fears of neo-imperialism or neocolonial- ism muted much of the hope for broadcasting’s power as a tool for positive social change. In any

83Buddhist Communication Theory

case, by the 1980s and 1990s, broadcasting was reaching more people, and local production was stepping up its output. For many countries where state-sponsored television had been the norm, new commercial outlets were springing up, often through cable and satellite. The fact that local media industries in countries such as India became very large and commercial seemed to confirm some aspects of both advocates of the moderniza- tion approach and its opponents. The technology was indeed powerful as countries’ economies changed, but broadcasting’s quality as the preemi- nent medium for carrying advertising also meant that the economic model of free-market capitalism was often part and parcel of the technological package. These trends have led to what we now call globalization.

Perhaps the most important, though controver- sial, theory of broadcasting as a technology was that of Marshall McLuhan. He saw media as extensions of human sense faculties, and he was far less concerned with the content of the medium than with its form. He famously said that the medium was the message, by which he meant that use of certain media tended to reorganize the way humans think. Most important for McLuhan was the transition from a literary or written culture (a culture of the “eye”) to a mediated, aural culture (a culture of the “ear”). While McLuhan was not the first to point out the importance of the devel- opment of writing as the advent of the very essence of modern, rational, scientific, Western thought, he popularized these notions to a very wide audience. Indeed, he became something of a media phenom- enon in the 1960s. While McLuhan’s ideas were widely circulated, they did not gain much traction among communication theorists. Most commonly, his thoughts have been attacked with the critique of technological determinism—the idea that all the effects of a technology can be deduced from its form. Raymond Williams (Television: Technology and Cultural Form) is a prominent opponent of technological determinism, arguing that cultural, social, and political decisions affect how a technol- ogy will be used. In any case, as we have seen, most theories of broadcasting have been linked with theories of media effect, and thus content and form are inextricably linked.

James Shanahan

See also Agenda-Setting Theory; Computer-Mediated Communication; Diffusion of Innovations; Frankfurt School; Marxist Theory; Media Effects Theories; Medium Theory; New Media Theory; Spiral of Silence; Theory; Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow; Violence and Nonviolence in Media Studies

Further Readings

Adorno, T. (1945). A social critique of radio music. Kenyon Review, 7, 208–217.

Cantril, H. (with Hazel Gaudet & Herta Herzog). (1940). The invasion from Mars: A study in the psychology of panic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lasswell, H. (1971). Propaganda technique in World War I. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lerner, D. (1958). The passing of traditional society. Glencoe, IL: Macmillan.

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: Signet.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion—Our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. London: Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. (1972). Television and growing up: The impact of televised violence: Report to the Surgeon General. U.S. Public Health Service. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Williams, R. (2003). Television: Technology and cultural form (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

BUDDHIST COMMUNICATION THEORY

Implicit in all great religions of the world are dis- tinct models of communication. In this regard, Buddhism is no exception. Buddhism refers to a body of doctrines and religious practices expounded by the Buddha—literally, the Enlightened One. The Buddha was born in India in 563 BCE and died 85 years later. There are two main schools of

84 Buddhist Communication Theory

Buddhism—the Theravada and Mahayana. The Theravada form of Buddhism, which is the earlier school, is practiced in countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, while the Mahayana form is practiced in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Tibet. There are a number of differences between the two, although both have much in common, and both offer impor- tant implications for communication theory.

The Buddha himself was a supremely persuasive communicator. He preached to the people in an idiom and vocabulary that were readily under- standable. He paid close attention to the psycho- logical makeup of his interlocutors and listeners. He designed his messages in a way that would appeal to ordinary people. In terms of models of communication, he placed the receiver at the cen- ter of his communication model—unlike most Western models, which, until recently, focused on the sender. Furthermore, the Buddha always con- ceptualized communication in terms of a specific context; the act of communication constituted an event, and the context was an integral part of the meaning. Finally, he placed great emphasis on the rhetorical strategies deployed by the communica- tor. The distinct ways in which he pressed into service allegories, parables, tropes, and stories bear testimony to this fact. Communication, then, is central to Buddhist thought.

Buddhist Phenomenology

Buddhists posit three basic characteristics as defin- ing worldly existence. They are impermanence, suffering, and nonself. The notions of flux and suf- fering are central to Buddhist phenomenology. The way out of a world of suffering, according to the Buddha, is by pursuing the Noble Eightfold Path, consisting of (1) right view, (2) right conception, (3) right speech, (4) right action, (5) right liveli- hood, (6) right effort, (7) right mindfulness, and (8) right concentration. In addition, there is no per- manent personal entity that can be called the self or ego. These three characteristics color the Buddhist approach to communication. In general terms, what is distinctive about the Buddhist understand- ing of language and verbal communication is that it signifies the middle path—it avoids extremes.

A social aspect is also important to Buddhist thought. There are five main presuppositions

associated with the ideal social order, and these have implications for communication theory: (1) The human being is supreme, (2) reason and compassionate understanding rather than blind dogma should guide human action, (3) human beings need to be pragmatic in their behavior, (4) all forms of violence should be eliminated, and (5) peace and harmony are the ideals that under- write society.

Dimensions of Buddhist Communication Theory

At the foundation of Buddhist views of communi- cation is the Buddhist view of language. Language is seen as always evolving in relation to social con- texts and conditions. In the famous discourse on the origins (agganna sutta), the Buddha informs the two Brahmins, Vasettha and Bhadrvaja, that human society is a product of evolution. Social institutions, including language, were not fash- ioned by some divine creator but evolve through processes of social growth. Language, then, is a social practice shaped by convention and agreed on by the people who employ it. In the Buddhist writings, there are copious references to agreement among users (sammuti) and the practices of users (vohara), evidence of the idea of language as a product of social evolution.

The Buddhist emphasis on language as a social practice also calls attention to the world shared by senders and receivers and how it constitutes a very important facet of the communicated meaning. A communicative event is more than the sending of a message by a solitary sender to a solitary receiver; it takes place within a linguistic context in which both are embedded. The idea of linguistic embed- dedness constitutes an integral part of the meaning of the communication act and gives it added focus and depth. Embeddedness is present in another way, as well. According to the Buddhist way of thinking, individual consciousness is nurtured on signs and reflects their logic and imperatives. Indeed, consciousness is dependent on the semiotic interactions associated with a given communica- tive event. Consciousness, then, is forged in the linguistic signs produced and exchanged by the participants; it is not just the subjective experience of the individual but takes into account the social dimensions of context as well.

85Buddhist Communication Theory

In fact, theories of interpersonal communication and intrapersonal communication intersect in inter- esting ways in Buddhist thought. According to Buddhism, language and communication ultimately should pave the way to liberation. Hence, self- reflexivity and critical introspection—the essence of intrapersonal communication—assume a great importance. For Buddhists, this self-reflexivity is built into the very process of verbal communication. In communicating, one is not merely stringing together a cluster of words but also reflecting on them and evaluating them; to communicate, to use language to interact with others, is to adopt a moral stance. From this flows the notion that linguistic communication involves the imparting of not only information but also feelings and moral assess- ments. Therefore, to communicate through language is to reflect on how one is constituted as a human being. This is an important area that has been rela- tively neglected by communication scholars.

Buddhism also contains a well-developed model of interpersonal communication itself, hardly sur- prising in view of the fact that the aim of Buddhism is to lead people away from worldly suffering; how to live productively and harmoniously with others in society is addressed by Buddhism as a way of alleviating suffering. Furthermore, the con- cepts of suffering, happiness, rights, duties, good- ness, evil, virtues, vices, well-being, truthfulness, and authenticity are discussed in ways that illumi- nate issues of interpersonal communication. The Buddhist model of interpersonal communication that lies behind moral injunctions, for example, focuses attention on the following components: the sensitive use of language, truthfulness and verifiability of communication, the achievement of consensus and harmony through interaction, the frames of intelligibility we bring to the communi- cative event, symmetrical relationships in commu- nication, the importance of contexts of interface,

and clarification and justification of moral princi- ples underlying social intercourse.

Buddhist communication theory is complex and many sided. The Buddhist approach to language and implications of Buddhism for intrapersonal and interpersonal communication have been pre- sented here as examples of the many implications of Buddhism for communication. Buddhist under- standings of communication as a social and moral act have much to offer contemporary communica- tion theorists.

Wimal Dissanayake

See also Asian Communication Theory; Constitutive View of Communication; Epistemology; Ethics Theories; Hindu Communication Theory; Language and Communication

Further Readings

Chuang, R., & Chen, G.-M. (2003). Buddhist perspectives and human communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 65–80.

Dissanayake, W. (1983). The communication significance of the Buddhist concept of dependent co-origination. Communication, 8(1), 29–45.

Dissanayake, W. (1988). Communication theory: The Asian perspective. Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center.

Dissanayake, W. (2007). Nagarjuna and modern communication theory. China Media Research, 3(4), 34–41.

Dissanayake, W. (2008). The idea of verbal communication in early Buddhism. China Media Research, 4(2), 69–76.

Nordstrom, L. (1979). Zen and the non-duality of communication: The sound of one hand clapping. Communication, 4(1), 15–27.

Rahula, W. (1974). What the Buddha taught. New York: Grove Press.

87

CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATION THEORIES

Communication campaigns are intended to generate specific outcomes in a relatively large number of individuals, within a specified time, and through an organized set of communication activities. In other words, campaigns employ communication strategies and theories to influence large audiences in some measurable way. Perhaps the objective is to persuade consumers to purchase a particular product, as is the case with commercial marketing campaigns, or to influence an attitude, increase knowledge, promote awareness, or even change a behavior, as is more common in prosocial campaigns. Campaigns can be school- or community-based or regional, national, or international in their reach. Mass media cam- paigns, frequently used for their large reach, are most successful in increasing awareness and knowl- edge, while smaller school- or community-based campaigns are more likely to generate higher level changes in attitudes and behavior. Integration of mass media and interpersonal strategies creates the greatest likelihood for behavior change.

Campaigns are complex in that they are an art as well as a science. In other words, high-quality graphics and creative ideas are necessary to attract and maintain attention, but so is a fundamental understanding of communication theory to maxi- mize understanding of audiences, message content, and evaluation strategies. A clear understanding of how theory can inform the campaign process will

improve the likelihood of obtaining successful campaign outcomes.

The three major phases of a campaign are plan- ning, implementation, and evaluation. While there are many potential theories that can be used to inform campaigns across the three phases, those theories that are highlighted in this entry are wide in scope and applicable to a broad range of campaign topics. This entry will discuss how theory can be integrated into formative research, message design, and evaluation procedures throughout a campaign’s planning, implementation, and evaluation stages.

Theory in Formative Research

The planning stage of formative research is com- monly divided into preproduction and production phases. During the preproduction phase, research on target audiences is conducted to understand their beliefs, values, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about the campaign topic. Preproduction research informs how audiences may be segmented so that campaign messages can be tailored appropriately to an audience’s demographics, geographics, and psy- chographics. During the production phase, message concepts are designed on the basis of preproduction findings and then are evaluated by target audience members to determine how they may be revised for the larger campaign. Primary research strategies used in formative research include focus groups, theater testing, surveys, and intercept interviews.

To begin the formative research process, cam- paigners will first identify relevant literature

88 Campaign Communication Theories

related to the campaign topic. The relevant litera- ture assists in the identification of a theoretical framework so that campaign researchers can iden- tify factors that might contribute to individuals’ willingness to attend to, identify with, process, and ultimately comply with campaign recommen- dations. Specifically, during the preproduction stage, theory helps inform the questions asked in a moderator guide, survey tool, or interview pro- tocol, and during the production stage, theory provides ideas for message design. Two theories often employed during the formative research phase are the transtheoretical model (TTM) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB).

Stages of Change/Transtheoretical Model

According to James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente, the TTM is based on the idea that individuals are at different stages of readiness to engage in a recommended behavior, which provides useful information for prioritizing audience seg- ments and identifying who is most likely to be influenced. According to the TTM, people can be in either precontemplation, contemplation, prepara- tion, action, or maintenance stages in terms of their readiness to change a behavior. People who do not believe a problem exists in their current behavior or situation would be in the precontemplation stage. Individuals in the contemplation stage are aware that a problem exists but have made no serious commitment to change. Individuals in the prepara- tion stage intend to take action to change and may seek information about how to facilitate a change. In the action stage, people have begun to address the problem behavior by adopting a recommended behavior. When they continue to engage in the rec- ommended behavior over time, individuals have entered the maintenance stage. As part of the for- mative research process, it can be helpful to identify individuals’ readiness to change as a strategy to seg- ment audiences. The types of messages that influ- ence people are likely to differ depending on individuals’ stage of readiness to make a change.

Associated with each of the TTM stages are activities that help move people through the behavior change process, including consciousness raising, dramatic relief, self-reevaluation, environ- mental reevaluation, self-liberation, social libera- tion, counterconditioning, stimulus control,

contingency management, and helping relation- ships. These processes of change provide cam- paigners with a toolbox of strategies to incorporate as part of their campaign messages. For example, if a target audience was comprised of individuals in the precontemplation stage (e.g., I did not know anything about blood donation), campaign mes- sages might focus on consciousness raising to increase awareness of the campaign topic (e.g. blood donations are at an extreme low), or if a target audience included individuals in the mainte- nance phase, campaign messages might focus on helping relationships (e.g., continue to donate blood with a partner) to ensure continued mainte- nance of the behavior. According to the TTM, people continually go through a decisional bal- ance, examining the pros and cons associated with a particular behavior, which should be assessed at the formative research phase (e.g., what are the perceived benefits and barriers to blood donation). Additionally, the TTM notes that self-efficacy, one’s confidence that he or she can perform a behavior, influences behavior change, which indi- cates a need to assess factors that may impact self- efficacy (e.g., how confident are you that you are able to donate blood). In sum, the TTM provides information that allows campaigners to segment audiences on the basis of their readiness to change and design messages to test during the formative research phase of campaign development.

Theory of Planned Behavior

Icek Ajzen’s TPB provides a useful framework for conducting formative research in campaigns. According to the TPB, three conceptually indepen- dent variables contribute to the formation of behavioral intentions that predict actual behavior: individual attitudes, subjective norms, and percep- tions of behavioral control. Attitude is comprised of behavioral beliefs that have outcome evaluations associated with them (e.g., wearing a seatbelt is a good thing to do); subjective norm is defined as a person’s beliefs that certain individuals or groups believe he or she should or should not perform a given behavior (e.g., my parents would approve of my wearing a seatbelt); perceived behavioral con- trol is the perception that performance of a specific behavior is within a person’s control (e.g., it is easy for me to use my seatbelt), and there is a direct link

89Campaign Communication Theories

between perceived behavioral control and behav- ior. The TPB is useful in the formative research phase because it indicates that campaigners need to investigate potential audience members’ attitudes about the campaign topic, normative influences that might affect their adoption of campaign rec- ommendations, and perceptions of control, which can identify perceived barriers to adopting cam- paign recommendations. For example, formative research for a campaign to promote seatbelt use among pregnant women might find that women have a positive attitude toward seatbelt use, as do their significant others, but it might also find that women report discomfort during the later stages of pregnancy. In the production phase of formative research, message concepts can be designed that support positive audience beliefs and address barri- ers. For example, in the seatbelt scenario, pregnant women might be reminded about keeping their unborn baby safe and be encouraged to purchase a seatbelt extension to improve their comfort level. Thus, while the TTM provides guidance for under- standing audience readiness to engage in behavior, the TPB provides insight regarding known predic- tors of behavior so that campaigners can engage in appropriate research that addresses those predic- tors in final campaign messages.

Theory in Message Design

The previous section discussed how theory can be used to understand audiences and create message concepts for testing in formative research. This sec- tion will elaborate further on the use of theory in message design as a strategy to improve the poten- tial impact of campaign messages. Campaign mes- sages need to be memorable, of high quality, and communicated via a channel appropriate to the audience. While creative messages are essential for society’s savvy information consumers, so is the theoretical contribution to message development, because theory provides campaigners with informa- tion regarding message structure, argument type, selection of appeals, and repetition, as well as source and channel choices. Many theories can inform message design, but to extend the discussion to other frequently used theories, social cognitive theory (SCT) and the extended parallel process model (EPPM) are discussed as they relate to cam- paign message design.

Social Cognitive Theory

SCT, a theory by Albert Bandura, is based on the same body of research as social learning theory but focuses more on human thought processes. The central idea of SCT is that people learn from obser- vation and that the reinforcement or punishment of behavior impacts their behavior and subsequent outcome expectancies in similar situations. Also, learning is more likely to occur if a person identifies greatly with the role model and has high self- efficacy. SCT is fundamental to campaign message design because it explicates the idea that people learn and are influenced when they make observa- tions, which includes observation of campaign mes- sages. SCT notes that people are more likely to be influenced by models or message sources with whom they identify; thus, formative research can identify these models for subsequent use in cam- paign messages. SCT also discusses the importance of rewards and punishments: Campaign messages can promote the positive outcomes associated with adherence to campaign recommendations or high- light the punishments associated with low adher- ence to a recommended action or belief. For example, a campaign message that encourages individuals to vote on election day may point out that they will feel patriotic and proud to be an American if they exercise their right to do so. And a campaign that encourages individuals to drive the speed limit may also indicate a punishment, such as “If you don’t, law enforcement will ticket you.”

The theory supports message-design strategies that promote message sources with whom audi- ence members identify, new information for audi- ence members to learn, demonstrations of recommended actions through appropriate chan- nels, and reinforcement or punishment as motiva- tors to comply with message recommendations. SCT is particularly useful when a campaign aims to demonstrate how to engage in a new behavior. For example, health brochures that demonstrate how to appropriately conduct a breast self-exam, a public service announcement that shows how to “click” your seatbelt to avoid a ticket, or a radio message providing directions on how to apply sun- screen appropriately all provide observable exam- ples of SCT. In sum, SCT provides guidelines about observational learning that can translate directly into message design strategies for campaigns.

90 Campaign Communication Theories

The Extended Parallel Process Model

The EPPM, a theory developed by Kim Witte, describes conditions when fear appeals will or will not be effective as a campaign message. Fear appeals are persuasive messages designed to scare people by describing the terrible things that will happen to them if they do not do what the message recommends. Fear appeals typically use vivid lan- guage, personal language, and gory details or pic- tures, and they are a popular strategy in both health and political campaigns. Everyone can recall health messages that warn of terrible things that will happen if people do not exercise regularly, eat right, get regular checkups, wear safety gear, or take preventive action of some sort. For example, public service announcements about drunk driving that show a crushed car and warn of imminent death if you drink and drive would be considered a fear appeal. And during political campaign sea- sons, it is easy to recall messages sponsored by a political party that threaten negative consequences and policies should the opposing candidate be elected.

The EPPM describes three components of a fear appeal that predict whether message exposure leads to acceptance, avoidance, or reactance: fear, threat, and perceived efficacy. Fear is the emotional part of the message, while threat refers to the perceived severity (e.g., drinking and driving results in death) and perceived susceptibility (e.g., I or my friends could be hit by a drunk driver) of the message. Perceived efficacy is comprised of response efficacy (e.g., designated drivers reduce drunk driving), as well as the previously discussed construct of self- efficacy (e.g., I am confident that I could easily be or use a designated driver). The EPPM states that when threat is high and perceived efficacy is high, target audience members will accept the message because they see there is a problem and feel as though they can do something about it. However, if they perceive a threat to be high and their efficacy to be low, they will not accept the message and engage in avoidance or perhaps reactance, in which they respectively choose to not address the message or do the opposite of what the message recom- mends. If a fear appeal is the message appeal of choice, this theory identifies message components that need to be present in a campaign message for the fear appeal to be successful. Specifically, a fear

appeal needs to promote a threat that is not too intense or scary, but still threatening, and it also needs to recommend an action that people believe will work and is easily done to address the threat. Essentially, the theory provides instructions for campaign messages that aim to scare people into action; however, the theory cautions that those mes- sages should contain both a threat as well as an efficacy component to be successful. For example, campaigners may decide they want to use fear appeals as an antismoking prevention strategy. Messages may include narrative evidence that shows a woman on her deathbed with an oxygen tank and a vivid picture of her tarred, black lung. To be effective, the message would also have to have a strong efficacy component that encourages audience members to remain smoke free by rec- ommending certain actions. While there is much controversy over the use of fear appeals in the campaign literature, they are commonly used in cam- paigns to illustrate undesirable outcomes for indi- viduals. Campaigners have an ethical imperative to include an efficacy component, and if they do not include an efficacy component, they decrease their likelihood of successfully influencing audience members.

Theory in Evaluating Campaign Effects

In addition to formative research and message design, theory informs the process and summative evaluations of campaigns. Process evaluation occurs during the implementation phase of a campaign to ensure that all facets of the campaign are moving along as planned, while summative evaluation occurs at the completion of a campaign to deter- mine its effectiveness. During process evaluation, theory provides a map for what variables are criti- cal to monitor during the implementation process. For example, the EPPM would indicate a desig- nated driver message that incorporates a fear appeal should result in acceptance of a message. However, if the message is seen as humorous rather than threatening or if the message does not have as strong an efficacy impact as expected, it would be critical during the implementation phase to assess the message and adjust it accordingly to avoid cam- paign failure. Process evaluation is often not done despite its importance for accurate evaluation of summative effects.

91Chicana Feminism

Social Norms Approach

Summative evaluation to assess the success of a campaign is based minimally on stated campaign objectives, which are informed by theory. At the outset of a campaign, campaigners look to theory to identify what variables (e.g., attitude, personal norms, knowledge) can be impacted by campaign messages and then develop measures that evaluate whether any changes occurred across those vari- ables. Campaign evaluation is difficult as it is not a controlled experiment, but quasi-experimental designs often are used to compare different schools, communities, or regions exposed to a campaign to other equivalent, unexposed groups. Theory plays an integral role in determining campaign objec- tives, which direct what type of measurement needs to occur to assess effectiveness. Social norms campaigns, for example, aim to correct audience misperceptions about a social norm by providing evidence that a perceived norm is different from the actual norm. Social norms campaigns, an approach developed by Alan Berkowitz, are often used on college campuses to address binge drink- ing, typically providing evidence that most students do not binge drink and only drink a few alcoholic beverages when they do—which is contrary to the common perception that the majority of college students binge drink. Prior to the start of the cam- paign, campaigners collect baseline data based on the constructs of the theory (e.g., how much each student actually drinks, how much each student thinks other college students at the campus drink). They will then set measurable objectives for the campaign based on the theory (e.g., the campaign will increase student knowledge of campus drink- ing behavior, increase communication about drink- ing moderately, decrease drinking by one alcoholic beverage per social activity). During and after implementation, campaigners measure those same constructs to determine whether any changes have occurred within the target group, and they perhaps compare the findings with those from a control campus. In sum, theory identifies important con- structs, provides measurement guidance, and con- tributes to the evaluation of campaign effects.

Kami J. Silk

See also Advertising Theories; Cognitive Theories; Entertainment–Education; Media Effects Theories; Reasoned Action Theory

Further Readings

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2003). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C. Lederman & L. P. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign (pp. 193–214). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Hornik, R. C. (Ed.). (2002). Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pfau, M., & Parrott, R. (1993). Persuasive communication campaigns. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38–48.

Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C. K. (Eds.). (2001). Public communication campaigns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Valente, T. W. (2002). Evaluating health promotion programs. New York: Oxford.

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back in fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349.

CHICANA FEMINISM

Chicana feminism is a movement that developed in response to the inability of the Chicano move- ment of the 1960s and 1970s and the Anglo feminist movement to incorporate the specific experience and social justice issues confronting women of Mexican ancestry in the United States. The experience of Chicanas is rooted historically in the colonization of Mexico and subsequently in the attainment and annexation of most of what was northern Mexico in the 1800s by the United States. Additionally, the Chicana experience is deeply informed by continued neocolonialist eco- nomic migration and immigration of Mexicans, both temporarily and permanently, to live and work in the United States.

This colonialist past and neocolonialist present combine to create a complex matrix of religion,

92 Chicana Feminism

ethnicity, culture, race, class, sexuality, and gender that characterizes the hybrid and complicated nature of Chicana feminism. Although there has been a history of Mexican women feminists in various forms since colonial times, what sets apart the Chicana feminist who evolved in the 20th cen- tury is a focus on political praxis combined with the creation of what Chicana writer Cherríe Moraga calls a theory in the flesh—theory that is inherently political in drawing on the contradic- tions and real-life experiences of Chicana women.

Influence of the Chicano and Feminist Movements

The Chicano movement grew out of a history and experience of labor inequalities and oppression and the efforts of activists and community leaders to cor- rect them. While these efforts had begun as early as the first decades of the 20th century and throughout the southwest United States (chiefly Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and California), the Chicano movement was most strongly influenced by the efforts of the United Farm Workers (UFW), led by César Chávez. This activism was the Chicano counterpart to the civil rights movement in the United States. Chicano university students in the 1960s became involved in supporting the UFW, as well as in questioning the general absence of Chicano experience from university curricula. In response, a Chicano Plan for Higher Education was pub- lished—El Plan de Santa Bárbara—calling for what would eventually result in the field of Chicano stud- ies and the birth of Chicano studies scholarship. The U.S. feminist movement similarly responded to the fervor around civil rights. Inspired by the history of the women’s suffrage movement in the 1920s, this movement worked to secure equality between the sexes in social, economic, and political contexts.

Chicana feminists responded to the ways in which they found themselves essentially absent from these two movements, despite the fact that they were in solidarity with the fundamental goals and purposes of both. The women’s movement, as the feminist movement was often called, was largely a movement centered around White, Anglo (English-speaking) women, often of higher socio- economic status than most Chicanas and influ- enced by very different root experiences and ways of life. Although women shared in the experience

of sexism, the experience of race and class generally was not reflected in the feminism of the women’s movement.

Similarly, although the Chicano movement was making great strides for the Chicano community, even its very name—the masculine form Chicano— reflected the taken-for-granted invisibility of Chicana women and of their rights to equal par- ticipation with men in the privileges being gained. The emphasis on the family, or familia, as the unify- ing concept or metaphor for Chicanos, like Mexicans, assumed the role of the woman as unquestioning child bearer and mother, sexual part- ner to the dominant man, and self-sacrificing—as Mary was in the “holy family.” The roles of women in Mexican history and in the Chicano movement were largely invisible and unacknowledged; Chicana feminists found themselves bringing the awareness of the history of Mexican feminism to the attention of Chicanos as part of their claim of relevance.

Also absent in the formal rhetoric of the Chicano movement were the tensions between men and women and the influence of machismo, or the emphasis on defending and exemplifying male strength, in the domination and subordination of women. While Chicano men were enjoying the prospect of broader horizons and opportunity, Chicanas did not feel included.

Chicana Organizing

In response to these voids, Chicanas began to orga- nize around their specific concerns. In 1971, in Texas, where the Chicano movement had led to the creation of the Raza Unida party, women orga- nized a caucus within the party called Mujeres por la Raza [literally, Women for the Race]. La Raza is a Spanish colloquial term used by Chicanos to refer to themselves as a community united by race. This caucus succeeded in incorporating women’s issues into the party’s platform, and throughout the early 1970s, Chicanas held repeated conferences, focus- ing on developing organizational skills and coali- tion building for women. They also worked against the race and class biases present in Anglo women’s politics and officially withdrew from the Texas Women’s Political Caucus, endorsing a series of Chicana candidates for various state and local political offices. Although Mujeres ceased to exist when the Raza Unida party ended, the types of

93Chicana Feminism

issues and activism that had begun did not. Similar efforts existed in other states, including the forma- tion of a national organization for Chicanas—the Comisión Femenil Mexicana Nacional (National Mexican Women’s Commission).

Chicana efforts to organize themselves were met with much criticism from within the Chicano com- munity. Often they were accused of hurting the overall Chicano cause by emphasizing their own issues. However, the Chicana response was a strat- egy that recognized the significance of women’s roles within the community. It sought to address all issues of inequity and to change the overall power dynamics operating: If domination of women within the Chicano community existed, it was not just women but the entire community that was affected by these imbalances of power.

Chicana Theorizing

The dynamics of these efforts would come to influ- ence the nature of the social theories and literature developed by Chicana scholars and activists. Particularly influential was the late Gloria Anzaldúa, a Chicana scholar activist who addressed the ten- sions experienced by Chicanas by creating a theory of borderlands about Chicana experience. Anzaldúa, along with other Chicana feminists, suggested that what a dominant academic audience would con- sider important might not be similarly significant to Chicana women and their communities. This is a central issue for Chicana feminists: to create the- ory that can impact academic scholarship while remaining relevant to Chicana women’s lives.

Whether traditional academic theory can cap- ture and address the core issues of importance to Chicanas has implications, not just for the content of the theory, but also for the ways in which the theory is written. As such, the style and form of Chicana feminist writing in its purist forms are best described as multigenre; Chicana feminist writing includes a combination of different forms, such as poetry, performative writing, autobiogra- phy, narrative, and code switching (alternating in a text from one language or linguistic code to another). As a result, the theories and writings produced by Chicana scholars and activists do not often fit neatly into existing academic categories or disciplinary boundaries. This is seen as evidence of its validity rather than as a shortcoming.

Political Nature of Chicana Feminist Theory

Most significant to Chicana theories, and reflecting the political origins of Chicana femi- nism, is the embedded and explicitly political nature of the work. Chicana feminism seeks to avoid relying on Western theories and forms of thought in order to avoid the risk of reflecting colonialist assumptions present in traditional aca- demic theories. Since Chicanas themselves are the product of colonialist processes of history, one of the more innovative aspects of Chicana feminist theory is that of imagining realities that might counter or resist the colonial.

This is apparent in the use of language, refer- ences to history, and narratives in nontraditional and surprising ways in order to move away from dominant modes of representation. The work of lesbian Chicana writers has been exceptionally powerful in challenging many of the colonialist issues embedded in the society they are resisting, calling into question the roles gender and patri- archy play in maintaining existing power rela- tions. Similarly, works that question traditional representations of religious experience and Catholicism, as well as those that utilize indige- nous traditions and symbolism to express theo- retical concepts, force colonialist assumptions to be laid aside.

Reliance on Lived Experience as Basis for Authority

By drawing on lived experience as the basis for concepts and ideas that are developed in their work, Chicana feminists reflect the early intention of Chicanas not to be made invisible in the light of dominant movements or ideas. Chicana femi- nists employ a test of real-life validity to their work, where the evaluation must come not only from a scholarly community but from within the cultural standpoint the theory is representing. Much Chicana feminist work is self-reflexive, apply- ing within itself tests of its own validity by applying cultural knowledge to the ideas as they are expressed.

Attention to Complexity in Chicana Feminism

Chicana feminist scholarship includes the aware- ness that a good theory will unsettle the dominant

94 Chicana Feminism

order in one or more of the dimensions that Chicanas address in their work. Chicana feminist theories acknowledge that race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality/ gender, and social class do not exist separately but in complicated interaction with each other. A good Chicana feminist theory, therefore, is rarely unidi- mensional, instead focusing on the multiple dimen- sions that are contested and resisted in Chicanas’ work. Their writing attempts to situate the various dimensions together, rather than separately, and the use of a combination of genres is one way of dem- onstrating the complexity of their arguments.

An example of this is the fact that a commit- ment to the inclusion of race/ethnicity as an inher- ent women’s issue for Chicanas ultimately implicates the inclusion of Chicano men and Chicano and Chicana youth, along with adult women. The issues affecting the women are part of the social fiber of the communities that birth and nurture the growth of Chicanas. This motivates the historical separation from Anglo women’s movements, as well as the view of male–female and other gender-related issues as part of the com- munication phenomena that must be explored for sound Chicana feminist communication theory.

Gender and complexity of self-representation are thus issues visible within the work of Chicana feminist communication scholars. Rhetorical and performance scholars have been particularly well suited to explore these issues of self-representation in work in keeping with the spirit of Chicana feminism. The work of Jacqueline Martinez uti- lizes a phenomenological approach to study themes of gender and sexual preference as a Chicana of mixed-race family history within the habitus or situated experience of her own life history. Michelle Holling explores the representation of women in Chicana literature, as well as the rhetorical strate- gies in 20th-century activist efforts that were, and continue to be, issues complicated by race, gender, and politics.

In addition to issues of extended family and historical background, the roles of religion and ritual are included as necessary aspects of Chicana feminist theory. Interdependence and solidarity within multiple Hispanic groups is implicit in theo- rizing about religion, with communication schol- ars particularly well suited to approach these interactional dynamics. An example is Sarah Amira De la Garza’s book Maria Speaks, exploring the

topic of self-expression and spiritual–cultural iden- tity as a woman attempting to reconcile issues of matriarchy within a patriarchal, religiously Roman Catholic Chicana upbringing. Her book uses poetry, autobiography, and performative and cre- ative writing as the forms for her ethnographic report, typical of Chicana writing.

In the work of Bernadette Calafell, interdepen- dence and complexity are shown to be an inherent feature of the gaze, or perspective, that Chicana communication scholars utilize as part of their standpoint. Calafell explores Chicana and Chicano performance as part of the larger field of Latina and Latino performance but as also distinctly affected by race, gender, and politics.

These dimensions furthermore do not exist in the same patterns or with the same relevance for all Chicanas. Stories of migration, varieties of experience in the labor market, religiosity, and sexual mores and preferences all combine in unpredictable fashion to create what is united by the experience of oppression and domination. Linguistic variation and preferences further com- plicate the subject of Chicana feminist theory. The struggle to remain united despite the wide range of experiences that create the identities of Chicanas will continue to be a hallmark of Chicana feminist theorizing.

Sarah Amira De la Garza

See also Autoethnography; Critical Race Theory; Feminist Communication Theories; Feminist Rhetorical Criticism; Feminist Standpoint Theory; Latino Perspectives; Muted Group Theory; Narrative and Narratology; Performance Theories; Performative Writing; Power and Power Relations; Social Justice

Further Readings

Anzaldúa, G. (1990). Haciendo caras/making face, making soul: Creative and critical perspectives by women of color. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Press.

Arredondo, F., Hurtado, A., Klahn, N., Najera-Ramirez, O., & Zavella, P. (Eds.). (2003). Chicana feminisms. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Callafel, B. M. (2007). Latina/o communication studies: Theorizing performance. New York: Peter Lang.

De la Garza, S. A. (2004). Maria speaks: Journeys into the mysteries of the mother in my life as a Chicana. New York: Peter Lang.

95Chinese Harmony Theory

DiCochea, P. R. (2004). Chicana critical rhetoric: Recrafting La Causa in Chicana movement discourse, 1970–1979. Frontiers, 25, 77–92.

Flores, L. A. (2000). Reclaiming the “other”: Toward a Chicana feminist critical perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 687–705.

Garcia, A. M. (1989). The development of Chicana feminist discourse, 1970–1980. Gender & Society, 3, 217–238.

Holling, M. A. (2002). Transformation and liberation amidst racist-assimilationist forces. Review of Communication, 2(4), 387–391.

Lugones, M. C., & Spelman, E. V. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism, and the demand for “the woman’s voice.” Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 573–581.

Martinez, J. M. (2000). Phenomenology of Chicana experience and identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

CHINESE HARMONY THEORY

Harmony is the cardinal value of Chinese culture. Chinese believe that the universe is in a process of constant change and transformation caused by the dialectical and dialogical interaction between yin and yang, the two opposite but complementary forces; harmony is the key to bringing continuity into this cycle of transformation. Thus, Chinese consider harmony as the end of human communi- cation, in which interactants try to adapt to each other in order to reach a state of interdependence and cooperation.

Based on this Chinese belief, Guo-Ming Chen developed a harmony theory of Chinese communi- cation in 2001, from which a total of four proposi- tions, 23 axioms, and 23 theorems were generated. The theory has been applied to different aspects of Chinese communication behaviors, especially the process of Chinese conflict management.

The theory indicates that the ability to reach a harmonious state of human relationship is the main criterion Chinese use to evaluate communication competence. In other words, from a Chinese per- spective, an increase in one’s ability to achieve har- mony will increase the degree of communication competence. Three principles should be followed to achieve harmony: (1) intrinsically internalize jen

(humanism), yi (righteousness), and li (rite); (2) extrinsically accommodate shi (temporal con- tingencies), wei (spatial contingencies), and ji (the first imperceptible beginning of movement); and (3) strategically exercise guanxi (interrelation), mientz (face), and power in the behavioral level.

Jen, Yi, and Li

Jen, embedded in the principle of reciprocity and empathy, is a collective virtue of showing love in interactions. Through a mutually and empathically dependent process, the essence of jen is emitted to sustain the harmonious interaction. Yi, as the internal criterion of appropriate communication behaviors, provides individuals with the capacity to exhibit flexibility and adaptability in a specific context dictated by social norms to reach harmony. Li symbolizes the formality of human interaction and connects an individual’s character and social duties by following the rules of conduct and speech in communication. Only through following li can an individual actively adjust to the harmonious and hierarchical order of society, avoid embarrass- ing confrontations, and handle socially ambiguous situations to uphold the group control over ego- centric tendencies. These three intrinsic concepts form the foundation of the inner structure of interactants in creating harmonious Chinese communication.

Shi, Wei, and Ji

Shi requires the ability of knowing the temporal relations to appropriately perform what one ought to in different stages of human interaction. Unable to recognize the change of temporal contingencies in interactions is detrimental to the achievement of harmony and therefore leads to a failure of communication. The spatial contingencies of wei consist of social context and communication envi- ronment. Knowing wei refers to the realization and distinctions of who, what, and where in the process of interaction, which is typically reflected in the hierarchical structure of human relation- ships. Thus, an increase in knowing wei will increase the development of harmony in Chinese communication. Ji is the hidden sign of the begin- ning of a movement that shows the trace of possi- ble consequences of an ongoing interaction. Being

96 Chronemics

competent to the Chinese means developing a har- monious state by knowing what is hidden and what is evident during the interaction. The way to foster the capacity of knowing ji is based on sensi- tivity and sincerity.

The intrinsic elements of jen, yi, and li form the latitude of Chinese communication, and the extrin- sic elements of shi, wei, and ji form the longitude of Chinese communication; together they weave the contextual network of Chinese communica- tion. This contextual network provides a field in which Chinese exercise various strategic skills to deal with their daily interactions. Chen’s Chinese harmony theory stipulates guanxi, mientz, and power as the most fundamental communication strategies employed by the Chinese, which will ultimately decide whether harmony is achieved.

Guanxi, Mientz, and Power

Guanxi dictates the particularistic ties of interac- tants in the hierarchical structure of Chinese social network. It is treated as a social resource Chinese use to persuade, influence, and control the interac- tion in order to reach harmony or competence. The ability to distinguish the levels of hierarchical relationships in a social interaction then functions to develop a supportive and harmonious commu- nication climate.

Mientz is the self-esteem or social prestige gained from the respect of one’s counterpart in the interaction. A competent Chinese always knows how to make or give face to avoid causing emo- tional uneasiness of others, which may lead to damage to one’s own image as well. In other words, to maintain the face of one’s counterpart means to maintain harmonious friendship in the network of guanxi.

Power in Chinese society is embedded in the hierarchical structure of the social network, which ascribes power to the seniority one holds and authority one possesses. The elder and higher- social-status individuals are the locus of power, not only in personal and social interactions, but also in the workplace. These three elements reflect the strategic skills Chinese exercise in the web woven by jen, yi, li, shi, wei, and ji to achieve harmonious and competent communication.

Taken together, harmony is the axis of Chinese communication that is sustained by nine spokes:

jen, yi, li, shi, wei, ji, guanxi, mientz, and power. The functions and interrelationships of these con- cepts form a holistic system of the ideal Chinese communication. The interaction and integration of these nine elements bring continuity into the end- less transforming process of Chinese communica- tion. Based on this theory, we understand that, to the Chinese, harmony is a state of equilibrium rep- resenting the fulfillment of competent communica- tion by which four ultimate goals of human communication can be reached: a feeling of secu- rity, a feeling of togetherness, a joyful feeling of interacting, and a feeling of benefiting from the interaction.

Guo-Ming Chen

See also Confucian Communication Theory; Taoist Communication Theory

Further Readings

Chen, G. M. (2001). Toward transcultural understanding: A harmony theory of Chinese communication. In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante, & P. O. Nwosu (Eds.), Transcultural realities: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations (pp. 55–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen, G. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 3–19). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Cheng, C.-Y. (2006). Toward constructing a dialectics of harmonization: Harmony and conflict in Chinese philosophy. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 33, 25–59.

Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3), 201–220.

CHRONEMICS

Chronemics is the study of the concepts and pro- cesses of human temporality, or connections with time, as they are bound to human communication interactions. Chronemics concerns the study and uses of various kinds of objective time involved in our daily timing and habits associated with our formal and informal obligations. However,

97Chronemics

chronemics also concerns subjective or personal temporalities. Combinations of subjective and objective time concern our own everyday personal time. It is this personal time, a combination of technical timekeeping and personal times and tem- pos, that is centrally and highly related to human communication. This entry is intended to explain how human temporalities comprise a nonverbal chronemics of human behaviors.

Chronemics is the newest area of nonverbal communication studies, and this new focus seems to link and bind together, for the first time, all other systems of nonverbal communication. All forms of nonverbal communication messages have their own temporalities, beginnings and endings, startings and stoppings, zeros and ones, befores and afters, faster and slower, and so forth. Verbal messages, too, have major temporal features. We could not possibly communicate without human temporality.

Chronemics should provide for a more dynamic study of emotional interactions between people. We are Homo temporalis; we all have a complex temporal identity, a composite of personal levels of time experiencing, to be discussed later in this entry. Chronemic studies developed from interdis- ciplinary time literature and research reports in biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Objective Time

Objective time concerns behaviors linked to our clocks, timekeeping devices, and calendars. These all deal with our comings and goings, the organiza- tion of communication events, and timing our everyday pursuits. Objective time concerns how most people reference time, times, and rates of change. Human attempts to develop timekeeping have been occurring for thousands of years. Marshall McLuhan noted that timekeeping devices are media that transform tasks and create new work and wealth by accelerating the pace of human associations or communication events. Most people do not understand that these devices have not dropped out of the sky; they developed from assumptions made long ago. The single most persis- tent and ongoing diffusion of innovation continu- ing its spread on a global scale is objective time.

Clock time was developed for use to standardize needed or valued shared experience, to regularize

our meetings, our hellos and goodbyes, our work schedules, our everyday comings and goings. The first characteristic of a developed society is its tem- poral regularity. Without temporal signposts or objective time markers, our communication meet- ings would be far less in number. Without calendri- cal markers, days, dates, weeks, months, and years, made up of seconds, minutes, hours, and other objective markers or intervals, our lives would be very different. We often become somewhat objec- tive in our own repetitive actions, routines, habits, and various forms of redundancies. Most of us are creatures of routine and regularity in our habitual daily schedules. We often seem to create objective time pacers to manage our daily behaviors.

Timing devices were created to produce lineally assumed equal intervals in a cyclic sequentiality. This helps people regularize and coordinate diver- gent personal and sociocultural time, timings, tem- pos, and rhythms, discussed later. Communication studies have been anchored in an objective time behaviorism that often neglects relativity theory and variable kinds of time. Many people reluc- tantly perform daily what Lawrence Wright has called a chronarchy, or the thoughtless regimenta- tion of people by timekeeping. It should be under- stood that those who control local clocks control space or proxemics, as well as movements or kine- sics though spaces. We develop many kinds of timetables and schedules in our social and work groups. Most of them have to do with expectan- cies, due dates, repeat activities, and how we order and structure our communication contacts.

Scientific and Technological Time

Scientific time and technological time are precise kinds of objective time. Unlike subjective or per- sonal time, scientific and technological time, timing, and tempo concern consistent measures reflected in some kind of clock time. Unitizations of processes are critical for any kind of scientific or technological time. Science could not exist without an objective time, clocks, calendars, and other structural features that equally mark off assumed temporal intervals. Seriality and unitized sequenti- ality are important tools for scientific investiga- tions. More convenient and faster contact speeds seem to parallel more and faster communication contacts. Communication between people is

98 Chronemics

becoming more and more immediate and simulta- neous; personally carried media are bringing people into immediate 24/7 contacts not possible before.

Technological time concerns our many kinds of media and their central forms. We often refer to media as channels of communication, not under- standing that the brain is the channel of all other media channels. Today’s communication media increase exposure to others. Objective time usage is balanced with subjective or personal time use.

Subjective or Personal Time

Genetic and Biological Time

Human genetics concerns a time and tempo, or what has been described as chronogenetics. Chrono genetic studies have shown that every gene has a timing structure, with control clocks that supply stabilities and transient clocks that indicate changes. Genetic temporalities interact with any infant’s basal endocrinic and metabolic capacities and potentialities. Each of us has a unique biologi- cal time because we have inherited biological time from our ancestors. Genetic time concerns the study of the interactions of states and processes of human genes. States are stabilities in the chronoge- netic codes, while processes concern transiences or changes in the genetic codes. The stabilities of a gene are called ergons, and the transiences or changes of a gene are called chronons. The study of biostationarity (stabilities) and bioperiodicity (rhythmicities) is called chronobiology. It is impor- tant to understand that genetic timing is what sets our biological clocks and explains why people seem to have widely ranging variations or differ- ences in their biological tempos. Biological varia- tions are always present, but often unconsciously so, and affect our communication processing as senders and receivers of communication through- out our lives.

Biological time involves biological rate varia- tions or biological rhythms, biological drives, and the management of our biologic need tensions. The study of biological time began in 1937, when Pierre Lecomte du Nouy published his book Biological Time. While some communication scholars have recently introduced the idea of a communibiology, it should be understood that sociobiology studies are often communication based and have been developing for many decades.

If two people’s biological processes are very dif- ferent, their interactive attention and perceptions become affected. We can then become dysrhythmic in our interactions. When our hormonal, meta- bolic, and biological rhythms are out of sync during interactions, we personally have problems communicating with others. Whenever biological rhythms, especially daily or circadian rhythms, are involved in mutual contacts, the chances are that we are experiencing communicative entrainment. Entrainment, or attempting to become synchro- nized in interactions between people, is extremely important because it can often result in many com- munication difficulties or failures.

Our developmental processes and aging are connected to our genetic and biological clocks. The Law of Janet was described by Josef Holubar in his work The Sense of Time: An Electro- physiological Study of Its Mechanisms in Man. This law states that the length of a subjective duration of a sensation is inversely proportional to the length of life already lived. H. Hoagland, in his essay “Some Biochemical Considerations of Time,” concurs in explaining that the slowing of oxygen consumption in the brain makes time appear to pass faster and faster as one ages, and in children rich in brain oxygen, time passes more slowly.

In short, time seems to crawl when we are young children and appears to rapidly fly when we get older. Time estimations are affected. The amount of oxygen to the cerebral cortex is very high in early developmental stages but decreases as we age and brain temperature drops. Our biologi- cal clocks slow down, and clock time seems to speed up as we increasingly age. Also, the acuity of all our sensory systems deteriorates.

Many pharmacological and psychotropic drugs and substances that are ingested in every sociocul- tural collective affect biological tempos and time estimates. Both illegal and medicinal drugs are often psychotropic stimulants or tranquilizers, and they affect our biological tempos. We also can be hyperaroused or hypoaroused naturally, being alert or not, being active or passive, being extroverted or introverted, and so forth, depend- ing on our inherited biological time. Biological time periodicities help us to regularize and set the characteristics of our perceptual time, timing, and tempos.

99Chronemics

Perceptual Time

Perceptual time concerns our processing of nonverbal cues or signals. Signalic, or perceptual, communication concerns how we induct the com- munication of others into our brains. This kind of communication is often called semiotics, or how we induct the nonverbal communication signals generated in our various natural, physical, technic, and social environments into our brains. This inducting-of-information process was proposed by Paul Fraisse long ago and concerns rhythmic induction. This requires us to see the world not as objects or spaces, as in objectivity, but as full of rhythmic waves and energy fields of tremendous complexity. We process light waves (seeing), sound waves (hearing), pressure waves (touching), molec- ular waves (smelling), biochemical waves (tast- ing), and other rhythmic inputs of stimuli. These waves are converted and channeled in sensory- specific ways into signalic impulses to our brains. The information is converted again when the sig- nals are slowed and the information is spread in thermodynamic lakes of formation within, or in- formation. These lakes of expanding and contract- ing energy fields are called holoscapes or holograms in holonomic brain theory.

Information that we have already stored in the main cortex of our brains, or old information, is called déjà vu (already seen) information. Our brains usually do not process much of this kind of information as it already represents our current, automatic, and familiar realities. When there is new information, it is called jamais vu information (never seen, new, novelty). The hippocampus of the human brain acts as a mapping function to screen out déjà vu formations and/or select jamais vu, incoming semiotics for processing. In a top- down fashion, we project our cortical holoscapes, or internal formations, on incoming stimuli, called bottom-up processes. Information processing is recursive and cyclic rather than a simple, in-or-out, linear process, as in older stimulus–response mod- els of human communication. Information pro- cessing is an in-and-out-simultaneous process. We project these internal formations on what is received through the senses more and more as we age. This is due to the accumulation of more and more brain memories and the increasing develop- ment of the top-down brain axis, discussed later.

This projection on receptions is called semiosis, or perceptual time.

When we infer or intend meanings, we are deal- ing with a psychology of time, not a perceptual time. Meanings are not directly transmitted; only signals or nonverbal messages, perceptual times, timings, and tempos are transmitted. When the nonverbal or signalic world of messages is inter- preted and made re-presentable, we are then con- cerned with meanings and psychological time.

Psychological Time

Psychological time concerns both objective and subjective temporalities, depending on what kinds or modes of consciousness are operative. The human brain not only concerns biological and chemical codes, semiotic or nonverbal communi- cation; it also and basically concerns memories (what we call the past), attention and perception (the present), and anticipation/expectation (futu- rity), a time system. The human brain is a temporal organ that extends throughout our bodies and is projected by our senses onto our various environ- ments. Our nowness expands and contacts; time must be variable in order for human brains to function as they do.

Karl Pribram, one of the world’s leading brain experts and founder of holonomic brain theory, has posited three credible kinds of human conscious- ness. These three kinds of consciousness are related to how psychological time varies: objective con- sciousness, narrative consciousness, and transcen- dental consciousness.

Objective consciousness concerns linearities, serialities, sequences, unitizations, logistics, and ordinary or ordinal thinking. It is left-brained tim- ing and sequentiality, connecting parietal lobe objective, reference memories with frontal lobe anticipations and expectations. This brain connec- tion is called the back–front brain axis. Language is objectively ordered linearities and sequentiali- ties. Consequentiality concerns objectively struc- tured goal orientations as to where our objective sequences might lead us.

Narrative consciousness encompasses right- brained, quasi-linear processes: music, aesthetics, stories, poetics, metaphors, plotting, daydreaming, fantasies, and so forth. It concerns human emotions and feelings, as well as the practice of intuitive

100 Chronemics

kinds of empathy, or “feeling into another,” or interactions between the objective brain (left hemi- sphere) and the subjective brain (right hemisphere). This brain connection is called the left–right axis. Edward Hall’s distinction between monochronic and polychronic time differences seems to be related to this objective–narrative difference. Hall’s conclu- sion was that monochronic time concerns what is here called objective consciousness, and poly- chronic time concerns the functions of narrative consciousness. Hall was advocating a comparative chronemics to study sociocultural time differences and not merely talking about doing one “thing” at a time as opposed to multitasking.

Transcendental consciousness concerns non- linear brain processes, including contemplation and meditational states, in which our everyday realities, our objective consciousness, is blocked. Any kind of linear or straight-lined sequential information disappears. We often have no recol- lection or remembrance of our transcendental journeys. However, many times, upon reentering our objective or everyday consciousness, we are puzzled as to where we have been. Sometimes we can experience insights, new ideas, and uplifting spirituality. Certain individuals and their social groups operate with different systems of psycho- logical time, making for problems during socio- cultural interactions.

Sociocultural Time

The manner in which a social group develops a temporal identity concerns how individuals are expected to act and behave in interactions with others. Some sociocultural groupings are focused on a past orientation, some are more present ori- ented, and some are future oriented. Supposedly, more developed groups are more involved in linear progression and future oriented. Most organiza- tional and work groups of people are purposively bound to objective time, as progress and produc- tion are their main concerns. There are groups that are much more into narrative time than Western societies are. Much of the global population is anchored in a narrative time and not an objective temporality. Objective time, when introduced into many narrative-time groupings within nations, tends to significantly alter their cultural temporalities, changing the culture. It is important

for diffusion-of-innovation and intercultural- communication scholars to recognize their own objective-time biases. Some sociocultural groupings, too, are primarily concerned with the spiritual and nonlinear aspects of transcendental consciousness. The rhythms of particular natural environments and particular people-built environments and the communication rhythms in various social environ- ments are all involved in sociocultural time.

The Advent of Chronemics

A number of scholars are responsible for the early development of time and communication studies before the word chronemics was coined. George H. Mead was a leading developer of the study of human acts and presentness. Harold Innis, a Canadian communicologist, produced a work entitled Changing Concepts of Time in 1952. Also in 1952, Edward T. Hall, under the auspices of the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, wrote an early work entitled The Process of Change. Hall was to write periodically about time and sociocultural relations over the next four decades. Marshall McLuhan, in several works, discussed time and human communication. Kenneth Burke, a rhetorical scholar, produced two early books, A Grammar of Motives in 1945 and Permanence and Change in 1965. Many other scholars in biology, anthropology, psychology, and sociology wrote about time and human relations.

The actual term chronemics was coined in 1972 by Fernando Poyatos, a Canadian linguist and semiotician. Poyatos, in dealing with the commu- nication system of the speaker–actor, briefly dis- cussed a chronemics that concerned conceptions and the handling of time as a biopsychological and cultural element of social interactions. Tom Bruneau developed the first article on time and nonverbal communication in 1974 and attempted to define a chronemics and outline its characteris- tics in 1977. Since these early works, a number of texts on nonverbal communication have increased commentary about chronemics.

Judee Burgoon, a researcher and theorist in nonverbal communication, outlined a new theory of communication concerning futurity, Expectancy Violations Theory, in 1978. In 1983, Edward T. Hall attempted to describe time as The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. Allen Merriam,

101Citizenship

in 1983, launched one of the first comparative chronemics studies, comparing Iranian–American differences in international communication. His work stands as a model that can be used to com- pare cultural time perspectives. The psychological theory of planned behavior has been introduced in communication studies in the area of organizing persuasion tactics.

The works of Joseph McGrath and Janice Kelly were important to the social psychology of time and to a communicatively based temporality. The writings of Eviatar Zerubavel on hidden rhythms and patterns of time in organizational communica- tion are important. The research of John Honeycutt did much to develop the idea of imagined interac- tions in intrapersonal communication, with some futurity perspectives. Another perspective on futu- rity is the idea of the consequentiality of commu- nication. Of course, all communication has some kind of an anticipated, expected, or eventual result, however fleeting. In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in communication publi- cations dealing with strategic planning. A model of organizational time has been developed in an arti- cle by Dawna Ballard, “The Experience of Time at Work.”

Chronemic studies need to include more interdisciplinary perspectives in their future developments.

Tom Bruneau

See also Cognitive Theories; Communibiology; Expectancy Violations Theory; Nonverbal Communication Theories

Further Readings

Ballard, D. I. (2008). The experience of time at work. In L. K. Guerrero & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader (pp. 258–269). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Bruneau, T. J. (1977). Chronemics: The study of time in human interaction. Journal of the Communication Association of the Pacific, 7(1), 1–30.

Bruneau, T. J. (1979). The time dimension in intercultural communication. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 423–434). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Bruneau, T. J. (1996). Subjective time, social interaction, and personal identity. In H. B. Mokros (Ed.),

Interaction and identity (pp. 97–118). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Bruneau, T. J. (2007). Time, change and intercultural communication: A chronemic perspective. Sign Systems Studies, 35(1–2), 89–117.

Cohen, J. (1967). Psychological time in health and disease. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Davis, M. (Ed.). (1982). Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communication behavior. New York: Human Sciences Press.

Gedda, L., & Brenci, G. (1978). Chronogenetics: The inheritance of biological time. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Halberg, F. (1977). Glossary of chronobiology. Little Rock, AR: International Society of Chronobiology.

Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Holubar, J. (1969). The sense of time: An electrophysiological study of its mechanisms in man. Cambridge: MIT Press.

McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time and human interaction: Toward a social psychology of time. New York: Guilford Press.

Zerubavel, E. (1981). Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship theory explains the cultural, social, political, economic, and legal processes that regulate national membership and belonging. Citizenship’s influence in communication theory has been growing for the past two decades because citizenship theory makes manifest the specific ways in which legal and material systems of soci- ety shape cultural processes of basic social partici- pation and enfranchisement. Although the term has been used to address quite a diverse set of questions, the most significant strands of citizen- ship theory in communication studies treat citi- zenship as civic practices, as an identity, and as a space for the exercise of political rights.

Civic Practice

Contemporary notions of citizenship began in the 1950s with the work of T. H. Marshall, who under- stood citizenship as full membership in a commu- nity. Marshall proposed three types of citizenship,

102 Citizenship

including civil citizenship, which regulates basic liberal rights (e.g., property, liberty of movement, legal representation); political citizenship, which influences the individual’s participation in the political system (e.g., voting, holding office); and social citizenship, which he understood as a per- son’s right to economic and social security (e.g., unemployment insurance, public education). Since Marshall, these three types of citizenship have been used to scrutinize national political realities, includ- ing the unequal ways in which civic, political, and social rights are distributed among populations.

Although Marshall clarified the types of rights, responsibilities, and expectations attached to citi- zenship in modern nations, his emphasis on politics legitimized a most common use of citizenship as political work—as civics—here understood as the exercise of the political duties and obligations of individuals. This traditional use of citizenship implies that civics and activism can do the job of assuring substantive justice within and among com- munities, thus improving democratic structures.

The notion that democracy relies for its func- tioning on the ongoing civic work of citizens is rooted in particular versions of the political phi- losophy of liberalism. In these versions, liberalism is the path toward having a society that balances personal independence and justice. Often in such theorizing about liberalism, citizenship is under- stood as an ideal identity that individuals must embrace for the health of the nation and to which the political system should be responsive. Here, the citizen is a civic worker who produces the best conditions for democracy and liberalism.

In communication studies, this understanding of liberalism and citizenship informs work on perfor- mance and media activism, broadcasting policy, political communication, liberal feminism, and some versions of critical race theory. Though widely done, understanding citizenship only as civics has theoretical limitations. While perfectly suited for envisioning a more energized civil society and pub- lic sphere, this notion of citizenship is less suited for radical critiques of liberalism and democracy, thus limiting its critical uses.

Identity

Some radical critiques were already suggested in Marshall’s work. Marshall defined citizenship as

membership, thus underscoring the need to chal- lenge the way citizenship defines who can and who cannot be a member of the nation. At this level, citizenship is an identity that has legal roots. Simply, our original definitions of national citizenship allowed some and precluded others from having access to this legal identity and thus to the portfolio of civic, political, and social rights that Marshall references. Women, children, prisoners, and racial, ethnic, and national minorities, people without property, could not have access to full citizenship. Since, activisms and wars have expanded legal defi- nitions of citizenship, but even today full citizenship is not legally accessible to some. Felons, children, homosexuals, women, disabled people, and immi- grants have legally downgraded forms of citizenship.

Although legal definitions of citizenship are at the roots of citizenship understood as an identity, cultural notions of citizenship have some life of their own. This has been the lesson of radical feminism, postcolonial theory, poststructuralism, and critical race theory. Culture does the job of furthering the legal logic by which some people are better suited to embody citizenship than others, and thus culture sets the conditions for belonging. Wealthy, White, heterosexual, able adult males have been traditional icons of citizenship, and although this tradition is changing, these charac- teristics still play an undue role in limiting the social and political participation of anyone not embodying them.

For instance, cultural forms shaping the public sphere, such as print journalism, political blogging, television news, and political talk shows, are still dominated by the voices of White, heterosexual, able adult males whose perspectives tend to reconstitute political discourses that, within the liberal tradition, naturalize their own existence as the voices of politics. Meanwhile, women, racial minorities, homosexuals, disabled people, and immigrants are relegated to marginal areas of the public sphere (e.g., ethnic and soft news) or relatively trivial cultural forms such as entertainment news, “chick flicks,” and “gangsta rap.” Not surprisingly, these commu- nities’ sense of national belonging can be conflicted.

Political Rights

Narrow cultural and legal definitions of citizenship have had an effect on formal political and economic

103Classical Rhetorical Theory

structures and have given way to the formal margin- alization of minority cultural forms. Theorists argue that this marginalization significantly limits the cul- tural freedom of nonpowerful communities and call for understanding culture as a substantive category of citizenship rights. Often referred to as cultural citizenship, this perspective on rights argues that racial, ethnic, sexual, and other minorities are inca- pable of experiencing basic liberal freedoms if they do not have cultural spaces for expression. Thus, cultural citizenship calls for the creation and main- tenance of a broad range of everyday activities such as festivals, ethnic media, theatre, and language preservation that together can function to energize minority expression. In addition, cultural citizenship scholars argue that these cultural spaces eventually can be used to claim civic, political, and social rights and thus improve the workings of democracy.

Hector Amaya

See also Critical Race Theory; Critical Theory; Deliberative Democratic Theories; Feminist Communication Theories; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Theories; Identity Theories; Ordinary Democracy; Political Communication Theories; Postcolonial Theory; Poststructuralism; Whiteness Theory

Further Readings

Berlant, L. (1997). The queen of America goes to Washington city: Essays on sex and citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Flores, W., & Benmayor, R. (Eds.). (1997). Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming identity, space and rights. Boston: Beacon Press.

Honig, B. (2001). Democracy and the foreigner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Marshall, T. H. (1973). Class, citizenship and social developments. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Miller, T. (1993). The well-tempered self: Citizenship, culture, and the postmodern subject. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. New York: Verso.

Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (Eds.). (2003). Language rights and political theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stevenson, N. (2001). Culture and citizenship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CLASSICAL RHETORICAL THEORY

Aristotle defined rhetoric as finding all the avail- able means of persuasion. Rhetoric was divided into five parts: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Classical rhetoric can be defined as the period of rhetorical developments from Corax (470–? BCE), author of the first work on rhetoric, The Art of Rhetoric, or Socrates (469–399 BCE) to Augustine (354–430). Thomas Benson and Michael Prosser define the period of classical rhetoric generally from Socrates to Augustine; Joseph Miller, Michael Prosser, and Thomas Benson argue that the medieval period began approximately with Augustine and extended to about 1400 and the rediscoveries of classical works.

Plato submitted rhetoric to its first philosophical dissection in his Socratic dialogues. The major Greek classical rhetorical treatise was Aristotle’s The Rhetoric, followed in Rome by Cicero, Quintilian, and Augustine. Five major classical rhetoricians include Plato (429– or 428–347 BCE or 420–348 BCE), Aristotle (384–322 BCE), Cicero (106–43 BCE), Quintilian (35–95 CE or 40–118 CE), and Augustine.

Plato

Plato, the most significant Western philosopher, articulated Western moral leadership of the uni- verse and developed metaphysical and scientific thinking. In The Republic, he proposed the true lover of knowledge as naturally striving for truth and not content with common opinion but under- standing the essential nature of things. His pro- tagonist Socrates dialogically searched for truth, justice, high ethics, and goodness. Plato considered the absolute idea of the good as the highest form of perfect and invisible ideas or forms that are developed by inner meditation, in contrast with concrete objects, which he rejected as constituting real knowledge.

For Plato, the ideal republic included a philosopher–king to support virtue, justice, and wisdom; soldiers to protect and control the citizens in acquiring the society’s honor; and the civilian members of the society to provide the material needs of the society. He believed that people would

104 Classical Rhetorical Theory

act in accordance with virtue if they knew what formed the basis of virtue. Plato excluded poets in his ideal republic since they dealt with illusion rather than reality.

Gorgias

One of Plato’s early dialogues, the Gorgias, deals with truth, goodness, justice, and ethics but also contrasts monological rhetoric, which he con- sidered like cooking or flattery, and interactive dialectic, or discussion, which leads intelligent individuals to reach the truth, perhaps by a kind of authoritarian consensus. Socrates implies that he knows what he doesn’t know, while those who think that they are wise often know nothing. The old illustrious teacher of rhetoric, Gorgias, and his followers discuss with Socrates the meaning of a rhetorician and rhetoric. It appears that Socrates leads Gorgias into dialectical traps as Socrates believes that the unknowing rhetorician or orator can persuade crowds or mobs better than the experts in health, medicine, and legislation.

Socrates asks Gorgias what he considers his art to be. Gorgias answers that it is rhetoric. Essentially, Socrates and Gorgias discuss reality as found in philosophical dialectic versus the semblance or pretense of reality as found in rhetorical culture and thus generally untruthful discourse. In ending the dialogue, Socrates makes a geometrical equa- tion that as self-adornment is to gymnastic, so is sophistry to legislation, and as cookery is to medi- cine, so is rhetoric to justice.

Phaedrus

Plato’s later dialogue about rhetoric and love has Socrates and Phaedrus discussing a speech by the famous Greek orator Lysias about love. Socrates praises the speech for its eloquence but critiques its lack of adequate definitions. He offers and then disclaims his own speech but finally gives still another, better speech praising the madness of love. Socrates proposes that if a speech is good, the speaker knows the truth about the matters he speaks about. Socrates indicates that speeches must contrast justice and injustice, good and evil, and reality and the semblance of reality.

In the Phaedrus, Plato introduces a noble rheto- ric, based on truth, justice, virtue, and goodness.

Socrates discusses both oral and written rhetoric, saying that as speech must lead souls by persuasion, a rhetorician must know the various forms of soul. The speaker or writer must also know the different classes of speech and also proper and improper words. Additionally, like Aristotle later, Socrates proposes that one should speak or write about things that are probable, based on first principles of goodness, justice, truth, virtue, and wisdom.

Plato calls on poets, persuasive orators or writ- ers, and legislators to consider the importance of real knowledge, which leads to truth, supporting it by dialectic. Then, by that serious pursuit he might well be called a philosopher, or a lover of wisdom. Plato ends the dialogue by wishing that his own soul might be beautiful and that all his external possessions would be in harmony with his inner soul.

Aristotle

Aristotle was the Western world’s first great ency- clopedist, writing many treatises including ones on metaphysics, politics, analytics, logic, physics or natural philosophy, rhetoric, poetry or dramatic arts, music, mathematics, geometry, biology or zoology, and psychology. He called himself a mid- wife of ideas.

Unlike Plato, who saw the soul as a separate nonphysical entity imprisoned in the body, Aristotle viewed the soul as relative and integral to the body. He described psychology as the study of the soul. Through the soul, Aristotle believed that humans develop the moral and intellectual aspects of humanity; thus the orator has the responsibility to lead audiences not only to truth, justice, and goodness but also toward happiness and human perfection.

Aristotle separated the study of logic into dia- lectic, as reasoned and intelligent discussion, and analytic discourse, which tests opinions for logical consistency, proceeding through deduction to indi- vidual cases. This logic established a major prem- ise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Logic also includes the process of induction, or individual cases to general principles. Aristotle did not see politics as an abstract idea, as Plato did, but as principles moving toward actual cases with the goal of leading humans toward truth, justice, goodness, and happiness.

105Classical Rhetorical Theory

Nichomacean Ethics

This treatise by Aristotle dealt with ethics, truth, justice, goodness, and happiness, emphasizing the link between happiness and honor. He identified the causes of human happiness as having a good family, spouse, children, friends, community, edu- cation, health, and sufficient wealth for one’s sta- tion in life, patriotism, and possibly dying gloriously on the battlefield for one’s country. In this context, Aristotle argued that life has to be seen in complete- ness. His concept of happiness was essential in his development of metaphysics, psychology, politics, rhetoric, and poetry, in which he expanded Plato’s views on ethics and happiness as being the proper topics of those lines of inquiry and thought.

The Rhetoric

In this treatise with three books, Aristotle defined rhetoric as finding all the available means of persuasion and as the counterpart of dialectics and politics. The first two books emphasized the classes of speeches, role of invention, classes of evidence, and the best ways to persuade the souls of one’s audience. The short third book, probably added at a later time, emphasized the three remain- ing aspects of persuasion: style, memory, and deliv- ery. The Rhetoric opened up the compositional, theoretical, analytic, and critical aspects of persua- sion throughout Western history, but it was so influential that it has also led many later authors into viewing rhetoric as a mechanical system. Aristotle himself avoided the dilemma that later developed by creating an open and systematic approach to persuasion.

Beginning his treatise, he contrasted rhetoric as the counterpart of dialectic, both of which he claimed belonged to no definite science as all indi- viduals engage in examining and submitting ideas to inquiry. Rhetoric is useful, Aristotle claimed, because truth and justice are naturally stronger than their opposites, and truth and justice will emerge in the process of offering proofs and telling one’s story in political terms.

Aristotle defined three classes of speeches: future-oriented deliberative speeches, which argue what individuals should or should not do; present- oriented epideictic or ceremonial speeches, prais- ing or condemning individuals and their actions; and past-oriented judicial or forensic rhetoric,

which persuades judges to decide whether an indi- vidual has or has not committed a crime and, if so, what the punishment should be. Aristotle believed that orators should be able to reason on both sides of a question in order to know the whole state of the case, not to promote evil, but to know the dif- ference between good and evil. Unlike Plato, how- ever, who believed that rhetoric itself must lead to moral conclusions, Aristotle argued that rhetoric is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral, as it is the orator who is responsible for leading audiences toward truth, justice, goodness, and happiness.

For Aristotle, persuasive speech must deal with probabilities as orators try to persuade their audi- ences by what is probable rather than what is abso- lute, or at least they must argue the difference between the possible and impossible. He said that artistic rhetoric must be concerned with proofs, which are a kind of demonstration, either through enthymemes—the most authoritative of proofs—in which the truth of one premise is well known and therefore is omitted, or by syllogisms, with the major and minor premises stated, followed by a conclusion. Aristotle’s major rhetorical contribu- tion was the notion that there are three kinds of artistic proofs: ethos, or ethical proof, which depends on the credibility of the speaker, knowl- edge of the subject, and good will for the audience; logos, or logical proof, which depends on enthy- memes and syllogisms; and pathos, or emotional proof, depending on appeals to the audience’s emo- tions, such as friendship, joy, anger, or sorrow.

In the second book, about the invention and arrangement of the speech, Aristotle wrote about how these proofs can be organized to persuade one’s audience. Specifically addressing the Greek men of his day, he proposed that young men are most likely to accept and be persuaded by emo- tional proofs, middle-aged men are likely per- suaded by a mix of logical and emotional proofs, and old men are persuaded by reasoned logic. Aristotle proposed that all speeches have at least two parts, the thesis and the proof. He also used the analogy of a human body to make this point: the head, the body, and the feet, or an introduc- tion, proof, and conclusion, comprise the parts of a speech.

In the third book of The Rhetoric, Aristotle briefly emphasized rhetoric’s central role in lan- guage, especially in terms of the metaphor, which

106 Classical Rhetorical Theory

he had earlier discussed in The Poetics, plus sim- plicity and clarity. He described all words as hav- ing denotative and connotative meanings as they may give the audience new knowledge. Aristotle called the metaphor and the simile figures of speech that enrich the orator’s artistic proofs by bridging the unknown and the known, but he urged that they should always be used in modera- tion. Finally, he briefly commented on the quality of the orator’s memory in recalling universal and specific commonplaces or topics to use in one’s oratory, as well as the need for a proper delivery. These two concepts were much more fully devel- oped in the Roman Rhetorica CE Herrenium, written about 85 BCE.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cicero was one of Rome’s greatest statesmen, elected Consul in 64 BCE, as well as one of the greatest Roman jurists, orators, and rhetoricians. Among his best-known speeches are his Catiline orations, delivered in the Senate in 63 BCE against Lucius Catiline. Cicero claimed Catiline had con- spired to overthrow the Roman republic. After Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE, Cicero delivered his 14 Philippic orations against Mark Antony, who then had Cicero assassinated in 43 BCE. Both Cicero’s orations against Catiline and his Philippian orations are considered models of nearly perfect classical rhetoric.

Cicero had studied in Greece and was heavily influenced by Isocrates (436–338 BCE), the author of Antidosis and Against the Sophists, one of the most important Attic orators, and the founder of a rhetorical school in Athens who recommended the importance of rhetoric for the development of citi- zenship. Aristotle, whose discussion of logical and emotional proofs served as the foundation for invention and arrangement of speeches, was also an important rhetorical influence on Cicero. His own rhetorical influence extended to Quintilian (35–95 or 40–118 CE); Jerome, the translator of the Bible into Latin (347–419 or 420); Augustine (354–430); and Petrarch (1304–1374), who redis- covered many of Cicero’s lost works, thus estab- lishing the significance of Cicero’s contributions for the Renaissance.

Cicero’s rhetorical writings included his history of Roman oratory, Brutus (45 BCE); Orator

(45 BCE), in which he identified the Greek Demosthenes (384 or 383–322 BCE) as the ideal orator, and by implication himself, arguing that the moral orator provided the best source for the advancement of civilization and government; and On Oratory (55 BCE), written after finishing his political and military career.

On Oratory

This treatise, replacing his youthful treatise On Invention, was written in three books, in what is called a Ciceronian or Aristotelian dialogue style, in contrast to Plato’s more interactive Socratic dia- logues. In On Oratory, Cicero uses an imaginary conversation among friends in 91 BCE to discuss the value of rhetoric; Lucius Licinius Crassus (115–53? BCE), one of the main participants in the dialogue, represented Cicero’s own views.

Crassus argued that the power of oratory on assemblies could direct their inclinations wherever the speaker wishes or divert them from whatever the speaker wishes. Furthermore, he suggested that in every free nation, and most of all in communi- ties that have attained the enjoyment of peace and tranquility, rhetoric is always the most superior art as the best source of civilization. After being chal- lenged about this positive argument, Crassus responded that while he was aware of the foolish arguments by Gorgias for the value of the orator’s style over knowledge, still the orator must be fully aware of the substance of the matter under discus- sion, as Socrates had proposed. Essentially, On Oratory discussed ethical and emotional proof more in the philosophical views of true rhetoric introduced by Plato’s Phaedrus and in Aristotle’s Rhetoric than in Plato’s Gorgias.

Orator

Cicero’s last rhetorical work, in the form of a letter to Marcus Junius Brutus, delineated his view of the ideal orator and argued that true eloquence requires excellence in both thinking and expres- sion, dividing style into appropriate language and delivery. The great orator must master three rhe- torical styles—the plain for simple topics, the middle for more profound topics, and the grand style for very important occasions, as was seen in the orations of Greece’s perceived best orator,

107Classical Rhetorical Theory

Demosthenes. For Cicero, the ideal orator can speak in the courts or deliberative assemblies so as to prove, please, or persuade. Cicero called the orator of the grand style magnificent and undoubt- edly possessing the greatest power in civilization.

Quintilian

A Spanish Roman, Quintilian was the first teacher of rhetoric in Rome to receive a state salary. His description of the true orator was the good man speaking well.

Quintilian wrote the 12 books of his Institutes of Oratory in about 95 CE when his patron, the emperor Domitian, was daily condemning many Roman citizens to death for the slightest expres- sion of disrespect toward himself; he banished all philosophers from Rome for fear that they would turn people against him. Domitian entrusted the rhetorical training of his two young nephews to Quintilian, and Quintilian wrote the Institutes for them as a treatise recommending the moral educa- tion of young boys as future citizens and leaders. Quintilian emphasized that the orator must above all study morality. Both Jerome and Augustine utilized the values promoted in The Institutes.

After being lost, The Institutes were rediscov- ered in 1470 and had a major influence in the Renaissance. Quintilian proclaimed rhetoric as entirely practical and useful, and while admitting that it could be misused, argued that it should be considered a good rather than evil contribution, both to the individual communicator in developing ethical standards and to civilization itself.

Augustine

Augustine is typically considered the figure who bridges the classical and medieval periods. A teacher of rhetoric before converting to Christianity, Augustine in a sense essentially begins rhetoric anew. The contrast between Verbum as the word of God and verbum as the word of man was debated from the beginning of the Christian church. Jerome, a classical scholar and Christian best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin, frequently argued with Augustine about whether Christians could honorably utilize the ancient pagan rhetorical works. Jerome claimed his Ciceronian training was his great weakness in his moral

development, and he gave up his study of classical rhetoric for Christianity. Augustine, however, in the fourth chapter of his treatise, On Christian Doctrine, argued that if pagan rhetoric could be used to honor God, then one could still utilize it. On Christian Doctrine not only ignores style over substance, it returned to Plato’s idea of moving individuals to truth by preaching the word of God. Augustine agreed with Aristotle that rhetoric itself is neither moral nor immoral but that the speaker is responsible for developing wisdom and truth. Nonetheless, wisdom without eloquence is of small benefit to states, but eloquence without wisdom is often extremely injurious and profits no one.

Summary

Classical rhetoric is important as the foundation for the modern field of communication, and the elements of rhetorical training offered by classical rhetoricians continue to be the basis of rhetorical training today. At the same time, there continues to be considerable debate about the nature of rheto- ric, its properties, functions, and ends, just as was the case in classical times.

Michael H. Prosser

See also Argumentation Theories; Community; Epistemology; Ethics Theories; Legal Communication Theories; Metaphor; Narrative and Narratology; Ontology; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Philosophy of Communication; Rhetorical Theory; Traditions of Communication Theory

Further Readings

Benson, T. W., & Prosser, M. H. (Eds.). (1969). Readings in classical rhetoric. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Clark, D. L. (1957). Rhetoric in Greco-Roman education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kennedy, G. (1963). The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kennedy, G. (1972). The art of rhetoric in the Roman world: 300 BCE–CE 300. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kennedy, G. (1980). Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kennedy, G. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

108 Co-Cultural Theory

Miller, J., Prosser, M. H., & Benson, T. W. (Eds.). (1973). Readings in medieval rhetoric. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Murphy, J. J., & Katula R. A (Eds.). (1995). A synoptic history of classical rhetoric. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

CO-CULTURAL THEORY

Co-cultural theory is a framework designed to provide insight into the communication behaviors of individuals with little societal power. Generated primarily from the research of Mark Orbe, co- cultural theory focuses on how culture and power affect communication. The theory focuses on various segments of society that have traditionally been described as being a part of subcultural or minority groups. This theory prefers the term co- cultural group. Initially, the theory focused on people of color; women; persons with disabilities; gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons; and those from a lower socioeconomic status. More recently, researchers have used the theory to study other groups, including the homeless, first-generation college students, immigrants, and international students.

The core concepts of co-cultural theory emerged from a series of qualitative studies designed to study communication processes from the perspec- tive of those historically marginalized in social structures. These foundational studies drew on the ideas of muted group and standpoint theories and used a phenomenological methodology to gather descriptions of everyday communication induc- tively. In particular, the theory is based on a spe- cific set of assumptions and related factors that help individuals understand how co-cultural group members use different practices (strategies) that are part of a larger communication orientation.

Co-cultural theory is based on five assumptions, each of which reflects a foundational idea found in muted group or standpoint theory. The first assumption states that a hierarchy of power exists in each society whereby certain groups of people have greater access to power than others do. In the United States, dominant group members include men, European Americans, able-bodied persons, heterosexuals, and those in the middle or upper

class. The second assumption is based on the idea that dominant group members occupy most posi- tions of power throughout society; these positions of influence are used to create and maintain soci- etal structures that inherently benefit their inter- ests. The third assumption of co-cultural theory explores how the reality of dominant group power impacts members of nondominant groups. In par- ticular, it states that dominant group members’ societal structures work overtly and covertly against individuals whose cultural realities are different from the cultural realities of those in power. The fourth assumption acknowledges the differences that exist within and between different co-cultural groups; however, it simultaneously recognizes the similarities that also exist within and across groups that occupy similar social positions. The fifth, and final, assumption states that co-cultural group members will be more aware of the importance of strategically adopting communication behaviors that help them negotiate dominant societal struc- tures. Such behaviors will vary within, and across, different co-cultural groups.

According to the theory, co-cultural group members will communicate strategically in a way that reflects a particular communication orienta- tion, and not all members of one co-cultural group will have the same communication orientation. How one communicates as a member of a co- cultural group is influenced by six factors: field of experience, situational context, abilities to enact different practices, perceived costs and rewards, preferred outcome (assimilation, accommodation, or separation), and communication approach (nonassertive, assertive, or aggressive). Different co-cultural group members will communicate in strategic ways based on how they negotiate these six factors. For instance, members of a small group of African American women may communicate in different or similar ways, depending on their upbringing, life goals, personalities, or other aspects of their identities. These similarities and differences, according to the theory, may also change depending on situational context. This idea is counter to existing research, which attempts to generalize the communication behaviors of non- dominant groups.

Early research by Orbe and colleagues identified 26 different co-cultural practices and determined that different practices were associated with

109Cognitive Dissonance Theory

various communication orientations. Co-cultural group members, for example, will use an assertive assimilation orientation if they seek to fit in with dominant group members through behaviors that assert their own rights without violating the rights of others. This orientation would involve the co- cultural practices of extensive preparation (engag- ing in extensive amounts of groundwork before interactions with others), overcompensating (work- ing extra hard in order to be accepted), manipulat- ing stereotypes (exploiting existing stereotypical views for personal and professional gain), and bar- gaining (creating overt or covert agreements to ignore co-cultural differences).

In comparison, an assertive separation orienta- tion would be enacted for co-cultural group mem- bers seeking to work independent of dominant group members. This orientation involves commu- nicating self (interacting with others openly, authentically, and genuinely), intragroup network- ing (working with other co-cultural group mem- bers), exemplifying strength (promoting the positive attributes of one’s co-cultural group), and embrac- ing stereotypes (redefining traditional negative stereotypes and incorporating them into a positive self-concept).

In addition to these two orientations, the the- ory conceptualizes seven others—nonassertive assimilation, aggressive assimilation, nonassertive accommodation, assertive accommodation, aggressive accommodation, nonassertive separa- tion, and aggressive separation—each of which has several co-cultural practices associated with it. While early research defined this framework, subsequent research has continued to fine-tune these co-cultural orientations by adding, revising, and debating how different practices are used for different purposes in different situational contexts.

Co-cultural theory has been heralded for its effectiveness in creating a theoretical lens to understand the communication behaviors of under- represented group members from their own respec- tive perspectives. In addition, it is valued for the ways in which it resists cultural generalizations by highlighting the diverse forms of co-cultural com- munication. Simultaneously, the theory reveals the commonalties inherent in how individuals attempt to negotiate discriminatory societal structures, regardless of the source of their oppression. Critics

of co-cultural theory have questioned the logic of this approach and pointed to the dangers of equat- ing sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and other forms of social oppressions. Others have argued that the process of co-cultural communica- tion is not specific to particular groups; instead it is something that all individuals experience as they occupy less powerful positions throughout their lives. Despite some of the limitations associated with this theory, co-cultural theory holds great promise for promoting an increased understanding of the inextricable relationship of culture, power, and communication.

Mark P. Orbe

See also Culture and Communication; Feminist Communication Theories; Feminist Standpoint Theory; Intercultural Communication Theories; Muted Group Theory; Phenomenology

Further Readings

Kirby, E. (2007). Organizing to “meet like real Americans”: The case of a Hmong nonprofit organization. In B. J. Allen, L. A. Flores, & M. Orbe (Eds.), Communication within/across organizations (pp. 201–228). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

Lapinski, M. K., & Orbe, M. (2007). Evidence for the construct validity and reliability of the co-cultural theory scales. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(2), 137–164.

Orbe, M. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Orbe, M., & Spellers, R. E. (2005). From the margins to the center: Utilizing co-cultural theory in diverse contexts. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 174–191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY

Cognitive dissonance theory is concerned with how perception and cognition influence and are influenced by motivation and emotion. Hundreds of experiments have tested dissonance processes. For the most part, these experiments have explored

110 Cognitive Dissonance Theory

the ways that the experience of cognitive disso- nance causes attitude and behavior changes.

Leon Festinger formulated the original theory of cognitive dissonance in the mid-1950s. Festinger theorized that when an individual holds two or more elements of knowledge that are relevant to each other but inconsistent with one another, a state of discomfort is created. He called this unpleasant state dissonance. Festinger theorized that the degree of dissonance in relation to a cognition = D/(D + C), where D is the sum of cognitions dissonant with a particular cognition and C is the sum of cognitions consonant with that same particular cognition, with each cognition weighted for importance.

Festinger theorized that persons are motivated by the unpleasant state of dissonance to engage in cognitive work so as to reduce the inconsistency. To reduce the dissonance, individuals could add consonant cognitions, subtract dissonant cogni- tions, increase the importance of consonant cogni- tions, or decrease the importance of dissonant cognitions. One of the ways of reducing disso- nance assessed most often is change in attitudes. Attitude change in response to a state of disso- nance is expected to be in the direction of the cognition that is most resistant to change. Tests of the theory often assume that one’s most recent behavior is usually most resistant to change, because it is often very difficult to undo that behavior.

After a decision, all the cognitions that favor the chosen alternative are consonant with the decision, while all the cognitions that favor the rejected alter- native are dissonant. The greater the number and importance of dissonant cognitions and the lesser the number and importance of consonant cogni- tions, the greater the degree of dissonance experienced by the individual. In a decision situation, dissonance is typically greater the closer the alternatives are in attractiveness (as long as each alternative has several distinguishing characteristics).Dissonance caused by a decision can be reduced by viewing the chosen alternative as more attractive and/or viewing the rejected alternative as less attractive.

Dissonance is typically aroused when a person acts in a way that is contrary to his or her atti- tudes, especially when no one provides encourage- ment or incentive for doing so. Individuals may reduce this dissonance by changing their attitudes to be more consistent with their actions. Dissonance

can also be aroused by exposure to information that is inconsistent with beliefs or attitudes.

Some theorists hypothesized that the effects were due to nonmotivational, cognitive processes or impression-management concerns. However, subsequent research confirmed that dissonance is a motivated process. Beginning in the late 1960s, researchers began to propose motivational expla- nations for dissonance effects that differed from Festinger’s theory. Four revisions have been proposed.

Elliot Aronson proposed that dissonance is not due merely to an inconsistency between cogni- tions. Instead, he posited that dissonance occurs when a person acts in a way that violates his or her self-concept, that is, when a person performs a behavior inconsistent with his or her sense of self. Since most persons have a positive self- concept, dissonance is most often experienced when a person behaves negatively, behaving in an incompetent, irrational, or immoral manner. One of the primary predictions derived from this revi- sion is that individuals with low self-esteem and individuals with high self-esteem should respond with less and more dissonance reduction (e.g., attitude change), respectively, because in disso- nance experiments, individuals with high self- esteem are induced to act in ways that are more discrepant from their positive self-views. Experiments testing this prediction have pro- duced mixed results.

Claude Steele’s self-affirmation theory pro- posed that persons possess a motive to maintain an overall self-image of moral and adaptive adequacy. Accordingly, dissonance-induced atti- tude change occurs because dissonance threat- ens this positive self-image. While Festinger’s dissonance theory posited that individuals are motivated to reconcile inconsistent cognitions, Steele proposed that individuals are merely motivated to affirm the integrity of the self. In support of this idea, Steele presented experi- ments in which, following a dissonance induc- tion, participants either were or were not presented with an opportunity to affirm an important value. When participants were allowed to affirm an important value, dissonance-related attitude change did not occur. Other experi- ments have suggested that making important but non–self-affirming values salient reduces

111Cognitive Theories

dissonance by reducing the individual’s percep- tion of the importance of the dissonant act, consistent with Festinger’s theory.

Joel Cooper and Russell Fazio proposed the idea that the discomfort experienced in dissonance experiments was due, not to an inconsistency between the individual’s cognitions, but rather to feeling personally responsible for producing an aversive consequence. In support of this idea, experiments revealed that dissonance-related atti- tude change occurred only in conditions in which an aversive consequence was produced. More recently, experiments have found dissonance- related arousal and attitude change in induced compliance conditions where individuals do not produce aversive consequences.

Several experiments since 1995 have sup- ported the original conception of dissonance theory. But why does dissonance evoke this state? Eddie Harmon-Jones proposed an action-based model of cognitive dissonance in an attempt to answer this question. The action-based model proposes that the perceptions and cognitions likely to arouse dissonance are those that are associated with action tendencies. The action- based model further proposes that dissonance between cognitions evokes an aversive state because it has the potential to interfere with effective and unconflicted action. Dissonance reduction, by bringing cognitions into conso- nance, serves the function of facilitating the exe- cution of effective and unconflicted action. Experiments have revealed that experimentally increasing the degree of action orientation expe- rienced following difficult decisions increases the degree of dissonance reduction.

Eddie Harmon-Jones

See also Attitude Theory; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Power, Interpersonal

Further Readings

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

COGNITIVE RULES MODEL

See Cognitive Theories

COGNITIVE THEORIES

The term cognition simply refers to mental activi- ties. Thus, in everyday conversation, when people make reference to paying attention, planning, for- getting, guessing, daydreaming, and so on, they are invoking cognitive concepts. The domain of mental activities is obviously very broad, encompassing everything that transpires from the initial percep- tion of a stimulus (e.g., the sight and scent of roses and letter shapes on a card) to evocation of thoughts and emotions, and even production of overt responses (e.g., verbal and nonverbal expressions of joy and appreciation). Cognitive theories provide an important window on communication processes because both message production and message comprehension ultimately transpire in the mind.

The objective of cognitive theories is to describe the mental system(s) that give rise to the various phenomena of interest. In other words, explana- tion (and prediction and control) comes from specifying the nature of the mental structures and processes responsible for producing a particular phenomenon (in much the same way that one might explain the movement of an automobile by describing the action of the pistons, drive shaft, and so on). At the most fundamental level, cogni- tive theories focus on explicating foundational mental processes such as the nature of attention, perception, comprehension, memory, and response production. As an approach to illuminating the sorts of issues of interest to communication schol- ars, cognitive theories have been developed to address phenomena as diverse as communication skill acquisition, social anxiety, memory for mes- sages in the mass media, romantic relationship development, and group decision making.

Historical Background

Cognitive science is a broad, interdisciplinary enterprise that draws from numerous intellectual

112 Cognitive Theories

traditions, among them philosophy, sociology, psy- chology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and com- munication. The systematic, empirical investigation of mental processes dates to the late 19th century, with the work of Wilhelm Wundt and others, but some authors have suggested that the actual incep- tion of cognitivism as we know it today did not occur until the mid-1950s. Prior to that time, experimental psychology had been dominated by various versions of behaviorism that gave little heed to unobservable mental processes. Never- theless, other fields of study, including social psy- chology and developmental psychology, had made ready use of mentalistic concepts at least since the 1920s and 1930s. In that same period, early researchers in speech departments began to focus on topics such as attitude change and the process- ing of persuasive messages.

By 1970, incorporation of the assumptions, models, and methods of cognitivism into social psychology had led to the development of social cognition—an area of study focused on how people acquire, store, and use socially relevant informa- tion, especially information about themselves and others. These topics, quite naturally, were of inter- est to communication scholars, and during the decade of the 1970s, cognitive models of various symbolic and social processes began to appear in the field of communication. By the time Michael Roloff and Charles Berger’s edited book, Social Cognition and Communication, was published in 1982, the cognitive perspective was firmly ensconced as a way of theorizing about communi- cation processes. The impact of cognitivism in advancing understanding of communication phe- nomena extends to the present, as evidenced by the work reported in David Roskos-Ewoldsen and Jennifer Monahan’s recent volume, Communication and Social Cognition.

Types of Cognitive Theories

Cognitivism is a general perspective that encom- passes a number of only partially overlapping modes of theorizing. Although it is not exhaustive, one approach to distinguishing types of cognitive models identifies three basic theoretical stances. The first of these seeks to explain behavior by recourse to brain structures and processes. A par- ticularly important development driving advances

in theories of this sort is the growing use of neu- roimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, which allows researchers to identify areas of the brain involved in communica- tion activities such as processing spoken language or viewing mass media content. In contrast, at the other end of the continuum of cognitive approaches are theories that invoke the terms of folk psychol- ogy as explanatory constructs. By folk psychology is meant the mentalistic terms employed in every- day parlance. Examples of such terms abound, but they include conceptions of goals, plans, attitudes, self-concept, and so on. The standard model of theorizing in the tradition of folk psychology is to explain behavior by recourse to one’s goals and the information (or beliefs) at one’s disposal.

Occupying something of a middle ground between theories cast in neuroanatomical terms and those cast at the level of lay psychology are theories expressed in functional terms. Theories of this sort seek to explain the phenomena of interest by specifying the functional architecture (as opposed to the physical architecture) responsible for observed regularities. Thus, functional theories are cast at the level of mind rather than brain. Theorists working at this level assume that the activities of the mind are instantiated in some way in the brain, but they are not terribly concerned with the precise nature of that link. It is this approach to theorizing that, to date, has been most common among communication scholars pursuing development of cognitive theories. Examples of functional-level theoretical constructs include con- ceptions of schemas, scripts, associative networks, procedural records, and processing capacity.

Distinguishing theories whose terms are essen- tially physical, functional, or of folk psychology is useful for identifying what sort of theoretical “ani- mal” one is dealing with (and what sorts of data are relevant to informing and testing those theo- ries). At the same time, such a simple three-category scheme is limited by the fact that, in practice, theo- ries may blur the line between approaches. It is very common, for example, for hybrid theories to attempt to explicate commonsense terms in func- tional ways (thus, theories have been developed to specify the nature of the memory structures that represent self-concept, attitudes, etc.). On the other side of the continuum’s midpoint, theories devel- oped within the discipline of cognitive neuroscience

113Cognitive Theories

attempt to illuminate the link between brain and mind (i.e., the ways that the physical systems of the brain produce the functional systems of the mind).

Information Processing Systems

One of the key conceptual underpinnings of cog- nitive science is the notion that the mind is com- prised of a series of subsystems, each responsible for carrying out certain operations along the path from stimulus to response. A rudimentary scheme for organizing discussion of these sub- systems distinguishes three major processing stages: input processing, memory, and response generation. Although useful as an expository device, such a general scheme comes with the caveat that these processing subsystems overlap, and in fact, each contributes to the functioning of the others.

The input-processing system entails the mecha- nisms responsible for attention, perception, and comprehension. It is this system that allows us to recognize letters and words on a printed page, to identify facial expressions of emotion, to hear auditory stimuli as music, to follow the plot of a movie, and so on. The response-generation system is responsible for the production of both covert (i.e., mental) and overt (behavioral) outputs. The activities of this system, then, include processes such as goal setting, response planning, behavioral monitoring, and motor control.

The memory system is the repository of infor- mation acquired via the activities of the input- processing and response-generation systems. As such, the memory system holds both declarative information (i.e., factual knowledge) and proce- dural information (i.e., the knowledge that under- lies the ability to perform skilled activities such as driving a car or pronouncing the phonemes of one’s native language). Cognitive theories typi- cally distinguish between long-term and short- term (or working) memory systems. Long-term memory is an essentially unlimited-capacity sys- tem that, as the label suggests, retains informa- tion for extended periods of time (i.e., years, or even decades). In contrast, the working-memory system holds a small amount of information, often assumed to be that of which a person is consciously aware, and this only for brief periods of time (i.e., on the order of seconds).

Cognitive Theories Bearing on Communication Processes

Specific examples can help illustrate the nature and range of application of cognitive theories that bear directly on communication processes. Certain cogni- tive theories (e.g., action assembly theory, heuristic- systematic model) are addressed elsewhere in this encyclopedia and need not be covered here, but other examples are useful for illustrating the diver- sity of cognitive theories addressing communica- tion phenomena.

Limited-Capacity Model

The idea that humans possess a finite pool of processing resources that can be flexibly allocated to carry out various information-processing tasks, and the corollary notion that some activities make greater demands on processing resources than others, dates to the pioneering work of Daniel Kahneman. Building on these ideas, the limited- capacity model, developed by Annie Lang and her associates, is concerned with processing of mes- sages in the mass media. A general integrative framework, the model incorporates conceptions of limited processing resources, controlled and auto- matic processing, and appetitive and aversive motivational systems to address how people attend to, store, and retrieve media content. Noteworthy, too, in this approach is the use of physiological operationalizations to tap underlying processing mechanisms.

Construction-Integration Model

A fundamental principle to emerge from the study of perception is that it involves the interplay of bottom-up (or sensory-driven) and top-down (or conceptually driven) processes. This idea is at the heart of Teun van Dijk and Walter Kintsch’s model of discourse comprehension. This model addresses the ways that people are able to assign meaning to individual words and clauses (or prop- ositions), to link successive clauses, and to arrive at an understanding of the overall gist of a message. Van Dijk and Kintsch hold that comprehension involves the interaction of perceptual systems, long-term memory of personal experiences and general knowledge (e.g., word meanings), and a dynamic cognitive representation of the message

114 Cognitive Theories

that is being processed. With regard to this final component, a key aspect of the model is the dis- tinction between the representation of the message itself, the textbase, and the situation model—a representation of what the text is about (e.g., the actors, actions, events). The authors note that memory for the textbase is typically much more limited than memory of the situation model.

Dynamic Memory Theory

In their early work on people’s ability to under- stand and remember narratives, Roger Schank and Robert Abelson gave emphasis to the role of scripts—long-term memory structures representing familiar sequences of events (e.g., visiting a restau- rant). In light of subsequent empirical research, Schank revised some of his earlier notions in devel- oping dynamic memory theory, a description of the memory structures involved in processing cur- rent events by relating them to previous similar experiences. In this later formulation, less empha- sis is given to the role of structures representing fixed sequences of specific types of events, and more attention is devoted to memory organization packets (MOPs)—more general memory structures that apply to whole classes of situated activities (e.g., conducting purchasing transactions). MOPs, then, organize sequences of more specific scenes (e.g., selecting grocery items from store shelves, going through the checkout line). Beyond its obvi- ous implications for understanding the compre- hension of narratives, the MOP concept has found application in the study of a variety of other com- munication phenomena, as is illustrated in the work of Kathy Kellermann and others.

Relational Framing Theory

Studies of interpersonal relationships consistently converge on the finding that they are arrayed along three dimensions: affection–hostility, dominance– submission, and involvement–noninvolvement. In relational framing theory, James Dillard, Denise Solomon, and their associates address the processes by which people make use of cues to draw conclu- sions about the nature of their relationships along these fundamental dimensions. According to the theory, virtually any statement or other social cue can be interpreted either with respect to its

implications regarding the affection–hostility (liking) dimension or the dominance–submission (power) dimension. The theorists propose that cog- nitive structures, termed relational frames, allow people to make sense of, or understand, the rela- tional significance of what would otherwise be ambiguous behaviors. The liking and power rela- tional frames exert mutual inhibitory influence such that activation of one frame tends to suppress the other. The effect of cues relevant to the third relational dimension, involvement, is to intensify interpretations associated with the activated rela- tional frame, whether it be liking or power.

Cognitive Rules Model

One of the pervasive understandings in the study of social behavior is that people act in the pursuit of various goals. Common examples of classes of goals include objectives such as securing material resources, establishing or maintaining interpersonal relationships with certain characteristics, and creat- ing a desired image of oneself in the minds of others. Steven Wilson’s cognitive rules model addresses the processes by which a person formulates his or her interaction goals. The model invokes an associative network architecture—an approach to addressing memory phenomena that has found very widespread application in cognitive science. An associative network consists of nodes that represent concepts and links that represent relationships between nodes. In the cognitive rules model, features of social situations, characteristics of one’s conversa- tional partner(s), and so on are linked with particu- lar objectives. When a person encounters a specific configuration of situational features, the interaction goals associated with those features tend to be acti- vated, and if this activation exceeds a threshold value, a goal is formed. Other aspects of the theory extend this basic formulation to address the effects of individual differences, situational ambiguity, and familiarity on social-goal formation.

Attitude Accessibility Theory

The attitude construct is a staple of social sci- ence, but research suggests that the relationship between attitudes and behavior is more complex than might initially be supposed. In an effort to better understand the link between attitudes and

115Cognitive Theories

behavior, theorists like Russell Fazio (in psychol- ogy) and David Roskos-Ewoldsen (in communica- tion) have pioneered the notion that attitudes may be more or less accessible in memory, and that accessibility, in turn, determines whether and how attitudes play a role in message processing, behav- ior, and attitude change. Like the cognitive rules model, attitude accessibility theory assumes an associative network architecture in which concepts, corresponding to attitude objects, are linked to evaluations. And, as in standard network models, the links between nodes vary in their strength such that when a given concept is activated, any evalua- tions with which it is strongly linked will be rapidly and automatically retrieved. In contrast, when asso- ciative links are weak, people may have to deliber- ate to determine their evaluation of a person, thing, or event. Among the predictions suggested by the theory are that readily accessible attitudes are more likely to predict behavior and to persist over time than are attitudes that are less accessible.

Planning Theory

Models of plans and planning were among the earliest developments in cognitive science, dating almost to its inception. Plans are typically held to be mental representations of a sequence of steps leading from some current state of affairs to a desired goal. Charles Berger’s planning theory is a noteworthy example of the application of the plan construct to explication of communication phenomena, particularly message-production processes (although the theory also applies to understanding the actions and messages of others). According to Berger, plans are hierarchical, with abstract action specifications at the top (e.g., per- suade someone to purchase this used car) and suc- cessively more concrete steps below (e.g., offer a 30-day warranty). The theory further asserts that plans vary in their complexity, both with regard to their specificity and in their incorporation of con- tingencies and alternative paths of action. An important element of the theory is the hierarchy principle, which suggests that when a plan is thwarted, people will revise lower level (i.e., more concrete) action specifications rather than the more abstract elements of their plans.

John O. Greene

See also Action Assembly Theory; Attitude Theory; Attribution Theory; Communication and Language Acquisition and Development; Communication Goal Theories; Communication Skills Theories; Elaboration Likelihood Theory; Heuristic-Systematic Model; Intrapersonal Communication Theories; Learning and Communication; Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Further Readings

Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Churchland, P. M. (1988). Matter and consciousness (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

Dillard, J. P., & Solomon, D. H. (2005). Measuring the relevance of relational frames: A relational framing theory perspective. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 325–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fazio, R. H., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Acting as we feel: When and how attitudes guide behavior. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 41–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.

Greene, J. O. (2008). Information processing. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 5, pp. 2238–2249). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Greene, J. O., & Morgan, M. (in press). Cognition and information processing. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hewes, D. E. (Ed.). (1995). The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–57). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Kellermann, K., & Lim, T. (2008). Scripts. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 10, pp. 4517–4521). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39, 125–128.

Lang, A. (2000). The information processing of mediated messages: A framework for communication research. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.

116 Collective Information Sampling

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Monahan, J. L. (Eds.). (2007). Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding in computers and people. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, S. R. (1995). Elaborating the cognitive rules model of interaction goals: The problem of accounting for individual differences in goal formation. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 3–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

COLLECTIVE INFORMATION SAMPLING

Early conceptualizations of collective information sampling (CIS) arose in the mid-1980s in an attempt to give insight into the nature of commu- nication processes and information management within decision-making groups. Garold Stasser and William Titus found that members of decision- making groups tend to communicate and discuss information that all members already know in common (shared information) at the expense of discussing information that individual members may uniquely know (unshared information). This tendency to favor shared information has a sig- nificant impact on the efficacy of group decisions and flies in the face of most intuitive communica- tion thinking. The further development of the theory helps to extend and explain the nature of information sharing within groups, especially those groups that have been given the task of making an important decision within a specific communica- tion context. The major tenets of this theory include not only the explication of the CIS bias toward discussing shared information but also the unpacking of the mutual enhancement effect that underpins CIS, as well as a discussion of additional factors that moderate this otherwise robust bias.

Collective Information Sampling Bias

The CIS bias toward discussing shared information is relatively counterintuitive. After all, the assump- tion is that decision-making groups are formed in order to disseminate information to group mem- bers that they may otherwise never discover on

their own; groups are then expected to use the col- lective knowledge of members to make a decision that is better informed than that of any one indi- vidual. However, in 1985 Stasser and Titus uncov- ered the tendency for group discussions to favor shared information over unshared information to a much greater degree than is predicted by simple probabilities. In a group setting, the probability that a certain piece of information will be dis- cussed, p(D), is based on the following model: p(D) = 1 − [1 − p(R)]n. This model relates the prob- ability that a member will recall and contribute an item of information (p(R)) to the number of mem- bers who can potentially recall the item (n). This model shows, through basic algebraic computa- tions, that information that is held by more than one member has a significantly higher probability of being mentioned in a group conversation or task. However, actual groups perform much differ- ently than predicted by the model, such that shared information is favored in discussions to a much greater degree than simple probabilities suggest. Unexpectedly, decision-making groups prefer to talk about information that everyone in the group already knows, and they do so significantly more than group organizers likely hope. Essentially, members do not disseminate much new informa- tion but instead prefer to discuss information that is likely already known by other group members.

As a result of this lack of new information obtained during discussion, decisional outcomes are often biased toward the prediscussion prefer- ences of individual group members; this bias toward prediscussion preferences is typically found even when the pooled information strongly favors a different decision alternative. Put simply, people often go into groups with a slight bias toward a decision, and other group members do not reveal enough new information to sway that decision; as such, groups are not able to make decisions any better than any one individual within the group.

Mutual Enhancement

In addition to Stasser and Titus’s finding that group members are more likely to communicate shared information than unshared information in a decision-making group, later research has found that those group members are also likely to evalu- ate their group experience more positively when

117Communibiology

members discuss mostly shared information (simi- lar to those processes present in groupthink). That is, members will rate the group interaction more favorably and will report greater satisfaction with the final decision when the group discussion emphasizes shared information that all or most members previously knew. In the late 1990s, this self-congratulatory group effect became known as the mutual enhancement effect. Mutual enhance- ment is likely caused by group members’ needs to feel validated and affirmed by other group mem- bers. Studies show that members tend to repeat shared information in order to affirm themselves, appear credible to the group (impression manage- ment), receive favorable ratings from members of the group (face negotiation), and/or create a rap- port with other members of the group. That is, one group member may be likely to mention something that other group members already know to be true, so that he or she can feel validated as other members display their verbal or nonverbal agree- ment with that statement.

Moderators of Collective Information Sampling

One way that researchers better understand the myriad potential moderators of CIS involves the experimental use of a hidden profile information sheet, much in the same manner as the original Stasser and Titus CIS research, which reveals shared and unshared information. By varying the proportion of shared and unshared information that is given about two options in a decision- making task, one can measure the extent to which groups discuss that hidden unshared information based on the proportion of groups that choose the more correct option as the favored alternative.

Using this hidden profile method, many poten- tial variables have been found that decrease this bias toward the discussion of shared information during group decision making. Research has found that group knowledge of individual expertise (through formal or informal channels) allows members the freedom to discuss unshared informa- tion to a greater degree. Additionally, group norms that encourage critical interaction often overcome the mutual enhancement needs of members. Structural considerations also have been shown to significantly decrease the otherwise robust nature

of CIS, including the introduction of leadership styles, the delineation of expert roles, the addition of time pressure, and the demarcation of member status.

Jonathan M. Bowman

See also Face Negotiation Theory; Group Communication Theories; Groupthink; Impression Management

Further Readings

Propp, K. M. (1999). Collective information processing in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 225–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.

Wittenbaum, G. M., & Bowman, J. M. (2005). Member status and information exchange in decision-making groups. In B. Mannix, M. Neale, & M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Status and groups (pp. 143–168). London: Elsevier Press.

COMMUNIBIOLOGY

The communibiological paradigm refers to a per- spective on the study of human communication that focuses on the role of neurobiological systems in the production of behavior. Individual differ- ences in communication behavior are conceptu- alized as reflecting individual differences in neurobiological systems. The initial rationale for the communibiological paradigm was based on the fact that after 30 years of research effort, the learning paradigm had failed to account for acceptable percentages of variance in either traits or behaviors. Similarly, models that suggested that humans can respond spontaneously to the demands of social situations also failed to produce accurate prediction of what people do during social encoun- ters. The communibiological paradigm was proposed to lead to more accurate predictions of communicative behavior.

118 Communibiology

Within the communibiological literature, it is common for the paradigm to be expressed as a set of propositions parallel to those first proposed in the temperament literature. The propositions evolved as new research findings were published and as social and behavioral scientists changed the way they thought about the nature of social inter- action. Before these propositions are examined in detail, it is important to place them in perspective. First, the propositions were not offered as knowl- edge claims. Instead, they should be viewed as assumptions or axioms on which theories can be constructed. All theories are based on assump- tions. One of the most conspicuous characteristics is the explicitness with which theoretical assump- tions are stated. Second, each proposition is heav- ily supported by empirical research. Although the propositions are not knowledge claims, a consid- erable body of research in support of each pro- position is presented to demonstrate that the propositions are reasonable. The propositions presented below represent the most current ver- sion of the communibiological paradigm.

The first proposition is that all mental processes involved in social interaction are reducible to brain activity. It might seem obvious that all mental pro- cesses can be reduced to brain activity, but the implications of that proposition are incompatible with some lines of thought about interpersonal communication. The proposition indicates that communibiology takes a reductionistic perspective on the relationship between the mind and the brain. This means that all mental activity first begins as brain activity. As cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued, to say that we can con- trol our thoughts makes no sense unless by the term we, the activity of a cluster of brain cells is implied. Communibiology rejects the notion that some metaphysical force or entity guides thinking. Drawing heavily from the work of neuropsychol- ogy, the communibiological paradigm depicts the subjective experience of self-control as an illusion created by the left hemisphere in the cortex.

The second proposition in the communibiologi- cal paradigm is that communicator traits and temperament characteristics represent individual differences in neurobiological functioning. In the communibiological literature, communicator traits have been conceptualized as expressions of temperament. Traits play a central role in the

communibiological paradigm. It should be clear to casual observers that people differ from one another in the way they react to stimuli. When people can be differentiated on the basis of their reactions, trait labels are used to refer to individu- als. For example, if someone routinely reacts with anxiety when forced to interact with others in a social situation, that person might be referred to as socially anxious. In this case, social anxiety would represent a trait. According to the communibio- logical perspective, any theory of communication that ignores communicator traits is necessarily and substantially incomplete. The proponents of com- munibiology argue that this incompleteness will manifest itself most conspicuously in weak predic- tive power such as that observed in the learning theories. Studies conducted along the lines sug- gested in the communibiological literature have resulted in substantially more accurate predictions of behavior than have been observed in the situa- tional paradigm research.

In the development of the second proposition, research was cited that demonstrated that individ- uals could be sorted correctly into high or low levels of various traits such as extraversion or aggressiveness on the basis of biochemical by- products detectable in body fluids after exposure to a stimulus. For example, the hormones present in the saliva of a person who is inclined toward aggressive behavior are noticeably different from those of a typically passive person after conflict with a stranger. It was primarily this type of research that communibiologists marshaled in sup- port of their proposition. Although more research focused on the trait–behavior relationship is war- ranted, the linkage between traits and individual differences in neurobiological functioning distin- guishes the communibiological perspective from other trait models of behavior.

The third proposition is that individual differ- ences in the neurobiological systems underlying communicator traits are principally (but not com- pletely) inherited. Care should be taken not to interpret this proposition as meaning that commu- nication behavior itself is inherited. According to the communibiologist, behavior represents an out- come of traits that are manifestations of neurobio- logical systems that are mostly heritable. Behavior usually results from more than one trait, and the impacts of situations are not direct but mediated

119Communibiology

through personality and neurobiological filters. All this makes for a complex relationship among fac- tors that determine behavior. Individual differences in neurobiological systems are not entirely inher- ited, as prenatal hormone cascades can also shape dimensions of personality. Prenatal hormone effects are neither genetic nor environmental in the social learning sense, but they are biological.

At present, there are no studies that show a direct link between specific genes and the neuro- biological systems proposed as determinants of communication traits and behaviors. Rather, the evidence cited in the communibiological literature has shown an indirect connection. This is because linking specific genes to the behaviors that interest communication scholars has not been a priority for geneticists. Nevertheless, the communibiolo- gists maintain that there is more evidence for assuming that neurobiological structures are inborn than for assuming that structures are pro- duced by experience or were assembled randomly. Three lines of research are cited in support of this proposition.

First, a huge body of studies referenced in the communibiological literature indicates that indi- vidual differences in temperament, which reflect individual differences in neurobiology, are observ- able in newborn infants before experience could possibly shape the traits observed. Second, studies link the presence of specific hormone combina- tions during pregnancy to the development of the infant’s personality. Finally, findings from the huge number of studies that have compared similarities of identical twins with those of fraternal twins are persuasive in support of the proposition that neu- robiological structures are mostly inherited. Biogeneticists point out that identical twins are genetically identical whereas fraternal twins are no more genetically alike than any other sibling pair. Therefore, high degrees of similarity between iden- tical twins and low degrees of similarity for frater- nal twins indicate the presence of hereditary influences. The percentage of influence due to heredity can be estimated from the correlations for the two types of twins. Meta-analyses, which are quantitative summaries of research, show that on average, about 70% of the variance among indi- viduals in a cluster of variables related to interper- sonal affiliation (e.g., friendliness, sociability, social competence) is heritable. Furthermore, social

anxiety was 65% heritable, and aggressiveness was 58% heritable. Although the results of twin studies are not definitive with respect to the role of heredity, the communibiologists maintain that twin studies, in combination with the newborn temperament observations and the prenatal hor- mone exposure studies, provide ample evidence to consider the proposition as a reasonable one.

Finally, the fourth proposition advanced in the communibiological paradigm is that dimensions of situations have only negligible effects on behavior. Individuals react to situations based on their traits rather than situations. Indeed, research shows that people respond differently to the same situation. Furthermore, research indicates that the nature of the response to a situation is heavily determined by the person’s traits. According to communibiolo- gists, individual traits contribute to behaviors in three important ways. First, individuals place them- selves in circumstances that are compatible with their traits. Second, individuals’ temperaments con- tribute to the situation itself. Third, interpretations of the situation are strongly influenced by the indi- vidual’s personality. All these factors are seen as interacting in the production of behavior.

The alternative position is that situations have direct and strong effects on behavior. However, this position stands in contrast to the results of over 20 years of research that does not show strong situational effects. The communibiologists argue that the relatively small direct effects reported in the research are due to the assumption that all people react the same way to a given situation. According to communibiology, individuals show preference for situations and react variously to them.

In the communibiological literature, the four propositions are organized sequentially into a causal chain. Specifically, genetic inheritance and prenatal hormone exposure are seen as leading to the development of neurobiological system param- eters, which in turn dispose individuals to different types of temperaments, which in turn dispose the individual to particular behavioral responses. This depiction of a causal chain is proposed in the com- munibiological literature as the framework for building theories about specific communication constructs.

Michael J. Beatty

120 Communication Across the Life Span

See also Interpersonal Communication Theories; Learning and Communication; Social and Communicative Anxiety; Social Interaction Theories; Trait Theory

Further Readings

Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Pence, M. E. (2008). Communibiological paradigm. In M. J. Beatty, J. C. McCroskey, & K. Floyd (Eds.), Biological dimensions of communication: Theory, methods, and research (pp. 1–14). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage.

Zuckerman, M. (1995). Good and bad humors: Biochemical bases of personality and its disorders. Psychological Science, 6, 325–332.

COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY

See Accommodation Theory

COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN

Humans have considered and written about their time-bound nature since they had the leisure to do so. And while the life course probably has not changed all that much, the way we understand it has. Life span communication theory should describe, explain, and predict the modifications that occur to human communication and thus to its outcomes over the course of a life span. This is a tall order, but it goes to the heart of what makes communication so interesting: It is what makes us human, what makes us capable of self-change, and what creates our social worlds. What follows is a brief history of life span scholarship and how it informs the specialty of life span communica- tion, a summary of the challenges to studying life span changes, examples of communication phe- nomena that have been tested for age differences,

and the current status of life span communication as a theory.

Background

Scholars of sociology and cognitive psychology were the first to formally study the life progres- sion of human behavior. Sociologists prefer the term life course to life span and examine the effects on social policy of changing demographics. Psychologists are more interested in individual cognitive changes across the life span. Some, such as Laura Berk, who did much of the research on the developmental function of private speech, may refer to their specialty as human development. Particularly in psychology, life span work arose from the study of early childhood development. In the 1920s, Jean Piaget systematically studied the cognitive development of very young children and assumed that development ended with the teen years. But life continues.

The premise of any life span approach to human behavior is that the potential for human develop- ment extends across the life span. In the communi- cation discipline, the key factor in human development is spoken symbolic communication, which makes possible self-directed change.

In 1989 Jon F. Nussbaum, inspired by the founding work of other social scientists, was the first communication scholar to formally articu- late a life span perspective. His view is that a life span perspective can subsume all other commu- nication theories under its umbrella. However, as both Nussbaum and Nikolas Coupland, a sociolinguist, pointed out a few years later, the early work in communication development did not conceptualize language and interaction as constitutive of life span experiences, meaning that people come to understand such experiences in terms of how they actually communicate about these experiences. And this is an impor- tant distinction for communication theorists to make. Although sociolinguists and psycholin- guists do acknowledge the constitutive nature of language, communication theorists are best posi- tioned to explain the link from spoken symbolic interaction to individual identity and distinc- tively human experience. However, the empirical research necessary to support this link rarely appears in the communication literature. One

121Communication Across the Life Span

reason for this gap is that life span methodolo- gies are complicated and take time to execute well. Perhaps a more important reason is the relative newness of life span study and the result- ing dearth of graduate-level coursework in life span theory and methods.

Methodological Concerns

Sophisticated methods for studying life span changes arose from the limitations found in exist- ing research designs. In 1988, Paul Baltes, Hayne Reese, and John Nesselroade wrote the book, liter- ally, on research methods for life span develop- mental psychology. Communication studies of life span change using the simplest appropriate sam- pling designs—cross-sectional and longitudinal— have appeared in the past decade or two.

Cross-sectional has been the most frequently employed design because the researcher collects data from different age groups at one point in time, thereby avoiding the problems involved in follow- ing subjects over many years. The remaining diffi- culty with gathering data from subjects of different ages is that the samples may not be comparable—in fact, probably are not. Confounding cohort influ- ences may make for a difference between groups; 5-year-olds in 1973 may have had different experi- ences than 10-year-olds did in the same year. If you ask a set of siblings about that year, you will receive very different answers that are not attribut- able just to age but to other influences: parenting, teaching practices, access to world events, and so forth. Another source of variation in cross- sectional design is the measurement itself. With very young children, some measures, such as writ- ten surveys, are not feasible. And with interviews or observations, the effect of the researcher’s atten- tion alone may have unwanted effects. Julie Yingling has interviewed children in treatment for cancer who ranged from age 3 to age 17. Even though the same set of questions was asked of each child, the answers received were not comparable across age groups. The very young children just enjoyed the talking and playing; the teens were serious and thoughtful in their responses. So, results were descriptive but not generalizable, or true for all children in treatment. Cross-sectional designs are quick but not always productive of use- ful developmental data.

Longitudinal designs, which follow the same person or relationship over time and repeated observations, may seem ideal for examining devel- opmental processes, but they bring different prob- lems. Some measurements (e.g., surveys) are prone to practice effects. If we study the same partici- pants over several months or even years, and use the same survey measure, the participants will become accustomed to it and may remember past responses rather than respond anew. One solution is to use observational measures instead of subject- controlled measures, in which the answers are controlled by the subjects who provide them. Yet another source of variance may be time of testing or observation. If the researcher’s plan is to mea- sure at the same time of day over several weeks, months, or years, the time of day itself could be producing an effect (8:00 a.m. can be very differ- ent experientially from 8:00 at night). The more severe problems include attrition (no researcher wants to end a longitudinal study with only half of the original subjects), the demands of time (often counted in years) that ignore the tenure clock, and the lack of flexibility to refine study procedures and theory as the field develops past the study. Nonetheless, longitudinal designs are appealing in their capacity to show people as they change. One example of their allure was the very popular British ITV television series that began in 1964 as “Seven Up” and documented a group of 7-year- olds every 7 years, ending with “Forty-Nine Up.” Charming and interesting as it was, it could not claim to be solid scholarship about development, although it raised intriguing questions about cul- ture and aging.

Even before life span research began, those who studied child development proposed more- sophisticated designs created to eliminate the disad- vantages of both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. In 1953, Richard Q. Bell suggested alter- nate sampling to assess differences across sets of cohorts matched on chronological age. A decade later, K. Warner Schaie went further by proposing a general developmental model that involves three sequential designs, each of which varies two factors of the three he views as critical to behavioral perfor- mance: chronological age, birth cohort, and time of measurement. These three designs (cross-sequential, cohort sequential, and time sequential) require suc- cessions of studies, like so: Time 1 observation: ages

122 Communication Across the Life Span

10, 15, 20; Time 2 observation (5 years past Time 1): ages 10 (new group), 15 (the original 10s from Time 1), 20 (the original 15s), and so on. The gen- eral developmental model controls for many sources of error and can generate solid descriptive data.

Beyond method and design, complex statistical analyses that lend themselves to the study of change have appeared more recently. Two appli- cable to life span communication data are linear sequential modeling and complexity theory (also called chaos theory or the new science). Rather than test mean differences, sequential modeling can solve more complex problems involving analy- sis of variance and covariance matrices, thus mov- ing beyond simple description to the possibility of prediction.

Complexity theory originally was developed by physicists and biologists to explain nonlinear dynam- ics in living organisms, and then it excited interest in the social sciences. The biologists were inspired by Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s 1968 general systems the- ory. As with systems theory, complexity models are meant to describe the nonlinear and dynamic nature of change and the nature of mutual influence among interacting levels of systems. Complexity theory has been used to examine weather patterns, traffic flow, tipping points, and abuse dynamics in families. However, the nonlinear mathematics involved in modeling these processes are not easily accessible or available to communication scholars, and not likely to be in the near future. At this time, a communica- tion scholar interested in developmental issues must find colleagues in other social sciences to assist in shoring up communication studies’ developmental foundations. Those foundations now consist of a few theoretical perspectives and a growing body of descriptive studies.

Developmental Research in Communication

Concepts that recur in life span communication include those that define variables borrowed from psychology: attachment, accommodation, person- ality, identity, private speech, and social support, and those that are primarily communication vari- ables: persuasiveness, cognitive complexity, con- flict management, comforting, dialectical tensions, and turning points.

Regardless of the phenomenon studied, current life span communication practitioners have, for

the most part, studied either children’s communi- cation or late-life communication rather than developmental changes in communication across the full range of the life span. Only very recently have communication researchers begun to exam- ine systematically points in the human life span other than the first or last.

Scholars examining early development have favored systems approaches. In 1993, Laura Stafford and Cherie Bayer plotted the existing research on parent–child interaction by the direc- tion of influence used to explain change: unidirec- tional, bidirectional, and systems process (or multidirectional), demonstrating the superiority of systems models for examining patterns of interac- tion and mutual influence. Four years later, Beth Haslett and Wendy Samter acknowledged systems theory as useful to studying communication and language acquisition, while emphasizing four struc- tural layers critical to a developmental perspective of children’s communication: sound, meaning, grammar, and discourse. Psycholinguists would use the terms phonetics, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics for those concepts. Regardless of ter- minology, any scholar of development would have to give some consideration to how these structures are acquired and how they interact in infancy and early childhood. Thus systems theory has been the prevailing choice of those studying early develop- ment for its ability to demonstrate mutual influ- ence of communication structures, as well as interactional partners.

On the other end of the spectrum, those exam- ining aging have chosen to test very specific com- munication theories across age groups to challenge the implicit assumption that studying communica- tion practices in college-age subjects produces reli- able explanations. Most communication theories are tested first in college populations, and many go no further. But at least two theories in common usage have been tested across age groups: attach- ment theory, borrowed from developmental psychology, and accommodation theory, which originated in sociopsychology.

Attachment theory emerged from the 1991 observation by John Bowlby and Mary D. Slater Ainsworth that parent–child interaction affects personality development. Explanations drawn from ethological research support the view that attachment serves a protective function for humans

123Communication Across the Life Span

as much as it does for young birds and monkeys. For Ainsworth and Bowlby, the crux of the matter was that early caregiver interaction leads to either security or insecurity; that in turn lays the foun- dation for the child’s personality development and later attachments. With the repetition of a given response to caregivers over time, the child forms one of four working models of self and oth- ers, creating a more or less enduring attachment style by adulthood: secure (positive models of self and others), dismissive (positive self model, nega- tive other model), preoccupied (negative self model, positive other model), and fearful (nega- tive models of self and others).

Although it is not featured in early versions of the theory, Laura Guerrero recently noted that communication is a cause of attachment style; the caregiver clearly sets the stage for the infant to learn interaction skills. The nature of the dynamic between them will affect the child’s attachments, perhaps for a lifetime. Attachment styles have been considered fairly stable, given a strong early infant– caregiver bond and subsequent reinforcement of that attachment—which is highly likely given that the developing child will be most comfortable par- ticipating in the same dynamic over and over. However, critical life events such as death or divorce can precipitate change in attachment style. Not only is communication a cause of attachment style, it can also be a consequence or mediator of style and can certainly reinforce or modify style. Several studies have shown that, in relationships, partners’ attachment styles interact to predict com- munication patterns. Guerrero suggests that the reverse could be true: By developing more socially skilled styles of communication, people could improve their models of self and others, thus modifying their attachment style toward the secure. Attachment theorists have predicted relational sat- isfaction from style for some time, but this approach can be used much more widely to examine all sorts of influences between communication and working models for self and other as they function and change throughout the life span.

Accommodation theory was developed in 1975 by Howard Giles and Peter Powesland to explain how communication behaviors change depending on whom our interaction partner happens to be. It has since been modified to a communication accommodation theory that explains the process

by which we can both reduce and magnify com- municative differences between people. Conver- gence toward another by approximating the other’s communicative behavior enhances similarities and reduces uncertainty. For example, adopting a con- versational partner’s accent or vocabulary can lead the partner to perceive the accommodating speaker as more similar to the partner and perhaps as more likable. Divergence, on the other hand, can be trig- gered by dislike of another, by wanting to appear as different as possible from the other. However, accommodation theory is more complex than sim- ply that. Researchers have found that context and perception affect results, thus allowing for the complexity of development. Accommodation the- ory has proven useful for the study of relational development and intergenerational communica- tion. Mary Lee Hummert’s work from the 1990s on suggests that as we age, we develop more sophisticated stereotypes of aging. That is, older adults have more positive views of aging than do younger adults. The use of communication accom- modation theory contributes to what we know about life span changes in communication and promises to continue to do so.

Life Span Communication as a Theory

Although there have been studies that examine (a) intergenerational differences, (b) links between self- and other-perceptions and communication behavior, and (c) changes with increasing age, there have been precious few to tackle the develop- mental questions of life span change in communi- cation from an overall theoretical perspective. Systems theory seems appropriate but is so general as to explain very little about change until all the subsystems and linkages have been first described. One useful attempt to flesh out systems theory is Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, first proposed in 1977, which has been used to study the influences of school and home subsys- tems on early childhood communication but has yet to be used extensively for life span studies.

Jon F. Nussbaum and his colleagues Loretta Pecchioni and Kevin Wright treat the study of the communication life span as an umbrella theory under which all communication theories can fit. Their per- spective, set forth in 2005, uses broad assumptions: (a) It is the nature of human communication to foster

124 Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

development, (b) life span communication involves multiple levels of knowledge, (c) change can be both quantitative and qualitative, and (d) unique methods are required to capture communication change. These assumptions are nearly axiomatic; few who study development or communication would argue against them. The theory has served well to pull together disparate communication research programs for a broader view of how communication changes across the life span.

In 2004, Julie Yingling also set out a series of assumptions to support a relational–dialogical perspective of communication development. In her view, human communication development is a dialectical process that first relies on physiolog- ical endowments, then builds symbolically and interactively across the life span. Stated briefly, her assumptions include the following: (a) The human mind is constructed with boundary expe- riences, or symbolic interactions with others; (b) these are internalized to create an identity that may fluctuate as communication experience fluc- tuates; and (c) internalizations of experience occur in cycles, the peaks and valleys of which may be viewed as turning points. This perspective relies heavily on the theory of relational dialec- tics, in which Leslie Baxter and her colleagues describe the process of making meaning between partners from the interplay of competing dis- courses. The fact that making meaning, a distinc- tively human symbolic activity, is both diachronic (occurs over time) and synchronic (in one moment in time) gives a clue to the developmental effects of meaning making. As we make meanings, we create and modify identity and social reality. In the process, we learn how to view self, how to view others, and how to view self with others. Such a dialectical process is inherently develop- mental and therefore fitting for the study of life span communication.

Both of the articulated perspectives of life span communication provide a starting point for filling in the blanks in our understanding of how, when, and why shifts in communication, identity, and social meaning occur in the human life span. Both theorists frame the existing communication litera- ture to describe an overview of life span changes in communication.

Julie Yingling

See also Accommodation Theory; Attachment Theory; Communication and Language Acquisition and Development; Communication in Later Life; Communication Theory of Identity; Relational Dialectics; System Theory

Further Readings

Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1988). Life-span developmental psychology: Introduction to research methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berk, L. E. (1998). Development through the lifespan. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Coupland, N., & Nussbaum, J. F. (Eds.). (1993). Discourse and lifespan identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Giles, H., Fox, S., Harwood, J., & Williams, A. (1994). Talking age and aging talk. In M. L. Hummert, J. M. Wiemann, & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Interpersonal communication in older adulthood (pp. 130–161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nussbaum, J. F. (1989). Life-span communication: Normative processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nussbaum, J. F., & Coupland, J. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of communication and aging research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pecchioni, L. L., Wright, K. B., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2005). Life-span communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yingling, J. (2004). A lifetime of communication: Transformations through relational dialogues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT

Relationships among communication, language acquisition, and development are deeply involved in what makes us human. While speech scien- tists and psycholinguists have examined lan- guage acquisition, and cognitive psychologists have tied language to developmental issues, most communication scholars have shied away from the question, What exactly does communi- cation have to do with language acquisition and development?

125Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

Definitions of Terms and Links Among Them

One of the first scholars of communication to con- sider the links among communication, language, and development was Frank Dance. This entry will start with the definitions he began to use early in the 1970s. Communication, in its simplest sense, is act- ing on information. Human communication is the way humans act on information to communicate by means of spoken language and its derivatives (e.g., writing, symbolic gestures). Human language is the systematization of symbols, which is syntactic and culturally determined. According to Frank Dance, yet one other definition is critical in providing the developmental piece. Speech is the human, geneti- cally determined, species-specific activity consisting of the voluntary production of phonated, articu- lated sound through the interaction and coordina- tion of physiological and neural systems.

For Dance, the human capacity for speech is what leads to the inception of the symbol and, fur- ther, to the development of human conceptualiza- tion. In his view, it is our human speech-making capacity that provides the connections among com- munication, language, and development. Indeed, cognitive psychologists from Lev Vygotsky through Alexander Luria and Philip Lieberman have agreed with the broad outlines of such a connection. Frank Dance posited more specifically, for the communi- cation field, that when human language is acquired normally, it is spoken, and that the development of spoken language leads to the constitution and effects of specifically human communication.

These kinds of theoretical statements stood out as novelties when they first appeared in the 1970s and early 1980s. Today they are not as controver- sial, yet neither have they become mainstream. Despite deeper examinations of communication development, we have been unable to either defini- tively prove or disprove the causality from speech to symbol to human communication effects, but the support is compelling. We look now to the work on these matters that has come to us from other disci- plines, then to the current state of thought.

Contributions Across Disciplines

Among the first to systematically link verbal com- munication with development was the Russian

psychologist Lev Vygotsky in the 1920s. He had read Jean Piaget’s work of the same era about ego- centric thought and speech and found something missing. Piaget claimed that the young child (younger than 7 years) thought and spoke egocen- trically, and only later were thought and speech socialized. Egocentric speech is language that is not adapted for the listener’s needs whereas social- ized speech is. For example, a 3-year-old is likely to say exactly what is on his or her mind: “I want a cookie.” An 8-year-old, however, is more likely to take into account the demands of the situation (e.g., it’s near dinner time, Mom is cooking vege- tables) and say, for example, “If you let me have a cookie, I’ll eat my broccoli.” Piaget reasoned that we say what our thought tells us to say; a young child thinks egocentrically and therefore speaks egocentrically. As the brain develops, the child is more capable of more complex, socialized thought.

Vygotsky undertook his own studies of egocen- tric speech. He made the children’s tasks more difficult, and as he did, the amount of egocentric speech increased. He reasoned that the children were using speech to figure out problems—that speech indeed helped the child construct trains of thought, not the other way around. Consider this example: A boy, in creating a picture of his home, said, “Where’s the blue crayon? I need the blue crayon. Well, never mind, I’ll use green and wet it to make it darker.” Here, the child, who could not find his blue crayon, is instructing himself how to adapt to its loss and solve his problem. For Vygotsky, speech was the tool children use to cre- ate sophisticated cognitive processes. Note that Vygotsky does not attribute this power to lan- guage, which is a cultural acquisition, but to speech, which is a genetic endowment subsequently enriched by language. The ability to articulate sound so that the sound can stand for something—to create symbols—is what allows humans to reason in the way they do.

Vygotsky’s explanation made sense to many, including Piaget himself, as he admitted in a fore- word to one of Vygotsky’s translated books. Others who noted and built on Vygotsky’s theory include Alexander Luria, another Russian psy- chologist, and Jerome Bruner, an influential American psychologist. The former is known for his sophisticated work on the making of the mind

126 Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

and the latter for providing the foundations of the interactionist school in developmental psychology.

Meanwhile, the discipline of linguistics was changing from the formal study of written lan- guage structure to considerations of the language– cognition connection and natural spoken language acquisition. The new cognitive linguists or psycho- linguists were interested in questions regarding the role of language in thought and vice versa. Beginning in the late 1950s, Noam Chomsky, a brilliant scholar and lifelong activist, called for a new kind of grammar—transformational—to explain what really happens when we produce language. Chomsky attributed the child’s ability to produce grammatical sentences to a brain struc- ture he named the language acquisition device (LAD). Again, as with Piaget, the focus is on the role of the mind (i.e., the LAD) in building social behavior rather than the role of social behavior in the development of mind.

When Jerome Bruner discovered the Soviet psy- chologists in the 1960s, he based his own observa- tions of early child language on their principles. He may be the best known of the developmental school of social interactionists. He explained that human development could not be merely a matter of bio- logical propensity or behavioral conditioning. He argued that Chomsky’s LAD would not be triggered without a corresponding language acquisition sup- port system. More sophisticated and enculturated language users provide the scaffolding for a child’s construction of symbolic language.

Also concerned with the communicative part of the picture, Philip Lieberman, cognitive scientist and linguist, devised in the early 1970s a theory about the evolution of human language. By the early 1990s, he argued that Chomsky’s LAD, or an innate universal grammar structure, was biologi- cally implausible if one examined principles of evolution. Instead, he proposed that children learn language similarly to the ways they learn every- thing else. The only difference is that they are uniquely equipped to produce and understand speech. Human speech allows us to communicate much faster than in any other mode and to articu- late distinctive sounds, thus allowing us to com- bine sounds in a structured (grammatical) way. This ability to “chunk” bits of sound and attach meaning to them in combination permits us to overcome the ordinary limits of memory. By using

sounds as symbols, we retain their meaning over time. The crux of the matter is the use of sounds for meaning: the symbol.

A symbol is one sort of stimulus that allows us to refer to something. In that sense, it shares the communication stage with signs. A sign is a stimu- lus that announces that thing to which it is intrinsi- cally linked. The relationship between a sign and its referent is fixed and concrete; it will always mean the same thing. For example, smoke is a sign of fire and announces to perceiving animals that fire is near. Similarly, a baby’s hunger cry announces a hungry baby. And the species’ set response in the baby’s mother is the letdown of her milk. On the other hand, the relationship between a symbol and its referent is entirely arbitrary. In the example above, mother can choose to perceive her child’s cry symbolically in any number of ways. For example, even as her body responds to the child’s cry as a sign, her mind can be assigning meanings like “my child loves me” or “my baby is trying to make me crazy from lack of sleep.” We create the meanings for symbols, the capacity for which endows us with creative gifts like time shifting— the ability to imagine what will be in the future and to voluntarily consider what has happened in the past. Symbols give us the raw materials for a self-concept in particular and for concepts— complexes of meaning—in general. For example, if Sue is told when she is 3 that she is a girl and the apple of her daddy’s eye, that information con- structs her idea of self. In preschool she adds pals to her life and so knows herself as a friend. Later, she excels at music, and she is a pianist. By adulthood, we cannot trace back all the sources of self-concept, but it is a pretty firm structure nonetheless.

Given that symbols are critical for developing other human characteristics and abilities, how do they arise? Apparently, the answer is that children grasp how to use speech sounds in a meaningful way with other humans in interaction. And it is here that the communication part of the equation links speech with interaction in development to result in language and logical thought. Contrary to Piaget’s view that cognition moved from egocentric to socialized thought, it is more likely that human thought develops from a spoken symbolic process worked out in the presence and with the assistance of others to a silent symbolic process worked out internally. Say that Ben has lost his mittens, yet

127Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

again. As his mother is trying to run him out the door to kindergarten, he says, “But I can’t find my mittens, Mom!” She prompts, “Well, where did you last have them? Did you wear them yesterday after school?” He remembers; “Yes.” She contin- ues, “Where were you playing? Who were you with?” He now recalls, “Jack was here. We made a snowman in the yard, and I needed a nose and took off my mittens.” And off Ben goes to the yard to find his mittens next to the snowman. Alexander Luria and others observed that this kind of learn- ing to use symbols for thought is done with the assistance of more sophisticated thinkers, such as parents, teachers, and tutors. Human communica- tion does not spring into being fully formed; it develops and changes over time. Those who under- stand this process of development and its depen- dence on interaction will be those who understand communication changes in the individual.

Communication Scholarship

The first direct treatment of developmental issues in the communication field was in the Frank Dance and Carl Larson text on speech communication in 1972. Ostensibly, it was a basic theory text but included a consideration of the uniqueness of speech communication behavior. Here were ideas from biology, semiotics, philosophy, and more. Further, they stated that the newborn infant is human only in form and potential; what confirms the infant’s humanity is the process of interaction with the human environment via symbolic com- munication. Dance and Larson go on to claim that symbolic communication leads to the development of human cognition. Here is where we see the influence of Lev Vygotsky on Frank Dance’s speech theory of human communication, formalized a decade later: The gradual internalization of speech communication mirrors the development of com- plex thought processes.

While Dance and Larson were basing their the- ory on the Russian theorists who viewed speech as primary, Jesse Delia and Daniel O’Keefe were founding their theory, constructivism, on the work of psychologist George Kelly, who actually had little to say about communication development but quite a lot to say about personality and personal constructs. A construct is a reference axis—or com- parison point between two alternatives—created

by a human for setting up a personal orientation to experienced events (including self and others). For example, an early construct might be a comparison point for people as either “nice” or “not nice.” One may create a meaning for “nice” only in the context of a meaning for “not nice”—some com- parison point. Kelly posited that we devise frames for making sense of our experience in this way.

The constructivists, starting in the mid-1970s with Jesse Delia, Ruth Ann Clark, and Daniel O’Keefe, built a communication theory that uses cognitive complexity as a explanatory variable for communication behavior. To measure cognitive complexity, they counted the number of constructs— descriptive words—that an individual uses to describe others. Their research demonstrated that both complexity and persuasive skill progress with age. They concluded that the more constructs the child has available for distinguishing different kinds of people, the more capable the child is of adapting persuasive speech to influence various others. This sounds as if the child is constructing socialized speech. Notice that a Piagetian would say that cog- nition is now serving communication. However, a Vygotskian would instead reason that the child’s symbol system—developed in interaction with others—has become internalized and has begun to serve cognition. The constructivists have stayed out of this argument, for the most part, but have con- tinued to use cognitive complexity as a primary variable that affects communication.

Others who studied constructivism, such as Brant Burleson, have moved on to study communi- cation behaviors such as comforting while retain- ing the notion of cognitive complexity as a related necessity for the development of sophisticated comforting behaviors. Indeed, his recent work demonstrates that parents and peers who were skilled in comforting influenced the development of children’s comforting skills. Even more interest- ing is the finding that peers’ comforting skills were related to a child’s perspective-taking ability. Seemingly, interaction partners contribute a great deal to the child’s developing abilities for socialized thought and sophisticated communication skills.

So, interaction, human cognition, and language (spoken symbols) are interrelated. The order in development seems to be (a) interaction, (b) spo- ken language, and (c) human cognition. Certainly infants think, but their thinking is largely limited

128 Communication and Language Acquisition and Development

to present time and place until symbols serve to stretch their capacities. When spoken language and cognition merge (at about 18 months), a new form of thought begins—conceptual thought—on the basis of internalizing symbols. But it is the interaction with symbolizing others that provides the impetus for such development. Children do not learn to think humanly or to speak meaningfully in the absence of social interaction.

Despite their differences, most scholars of development are thorough social interactionists; they believe that interaction is necessary to the development of both communication and lan- guage and that we must study interaction to tease out its effects. Thus, much of learning to be a competent communicator is a matter of the inter- action we encounter and the sense we make of it.

Current Thought

Although studies about early childhood communi- cation have burgeoned in recent years, complete theoretical treatments about communication/ language/development relationships are still rela- tively rare in the communication field.

One worthy text, by Beth Haslett and Wendy Samter, appeared in 1997. Although they did not offer a communication theory per se in Children Communicating, they did frame nicely what we know about early childhood development of lan- guage and communication. They offer overviews of Piaget’s and Vygostky’s theories and then offer an alternative ecological approach articulated by devel- opmental psychologist Michael Forrester. For Forrester, the most important social cognitive skill is the ability to understand and participate in con- versation. He suggests that young children learn by “overhearing” interaction. Haslett and Samter are content to say that communication, language, and thought all interact and mutually influence each other.

In 2004, Julie Yingling offered a relational– dialogical perspective of development, extending it beyond infancy and childhood to the human life span. This approach, owing much to the develop- mental interactionists and to dialectical theories of communication, rests on the notion that human thought and self-awareness emerge from the abil- ity to use spoken symbols interactively. Mikhail Bakhtin, another Soviet scholar, suggested that

consciousness lies on the border between the organism and the material world. Further, he claimed that the workings of each human are at such variance as to require the translation found in symbols. Here, at the boundary between self and other, dialogue is what creates meaning. Yingling uses dialogic processes to explain how human communicative development occurs—in a series of progressive internalizations of symbolic interac- tions or boundary experiences.

To explain fully the relationships among com- munication, language acquisition, and develop- ment calls for knowledge of each of these processes, including their physiological and neurological bases, as well as the influence of various interac- tion sources on the developing human. Much of that knowledge is available and has produced cur- rent theories that rely on symbolic interaction as an explanatory variable for many human effects. Refinement and adjustment of these theories is inevitable as relevant communication research continues to proliferate.

Julie Yingling

See also Communication Across the Life Span; Constructivism; Dialogue Theories; Language and Communication; Relational Dialectics; Social Construction of Reality; Social Support; Symbolic Interactionism

Further Readings

Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255–287.

Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. (2002). Parental and peer contributions to the emotional support skills of the child: From whom do children learn to express support? Journal of Family Communication, 2, 79–97.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

Dance, F. E. X. (1982). A speech theory of human communication. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory: Comparative essays (pp. 120–146). New York: Harper & Row.

Dance, F. E. X., & Larson, C. E. (1972). Speech communication: Concepts and behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Haslett, B. B., & Samter, W. (1997). Children communicating: The first 5 years. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

129Communication Goal Theories

Lieberman, P. (1991). Uniquely human: The evolution of speech, thought, and selfless behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Luria, A. R., Cole, M., & Cole, S. (Eds.). (1979). The making of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Thought and language (A. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yingling, J. (2004). A lifetime of communication: Transformations through relational dialogues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION

See Social and Communicative Anxiety

COMMUNICATION GOAL THEORIES

A goal is some desired end or state of affairs that an individual desires to attain or maintain. Desires become interaction goals when communication and coordination with another are required for goal achievement. The majority of our communi- cation with others is goal directed. We pursue goals as we seek to form relationships, convince others of our position, or work to accomplish a task. Goals are a cognitive phenomenon; merely thinking about a goal is not enough to achieve a desired end. The achievement of a goal requires some sort of action designed for attainment. Planning consists of producing one or more men- tal models detailing how a goal might be achieved through interaction. The products of goals and plans are the overt behaviors produced in service of a goal. Goals affect all levels of behavior rang- ing from the content and structure of verbal mes- sages to nonverbal behaviors. This entry explores theoretical explanations of goals and plans and the ways these cognitive processes inform communication.

Forming Goals

Theories of goal-driven behavior locate goals within a goals–plans–action (GPA) sequence initiated by the activation of goal-related concepts from memory. Greene’s action assembly theory and Wilson’s cogni- tive rules model assume that goal-relevant informa- tion, including knowledge about goals and situational features relevant to each goal, is stored as nodes within an associative network in long-term memory. The network of goal-relevant information includes concepts such as people, traits, relational qualities, and desired outcomes.

In a given communication situation, relevant concepts are activated in memory. For example, when one is with a romantic partner, concepts related to relationships, romance, and anything relevant to the specific partner may be activated. If one wanted to convince a partner to go to dinner at a certain restaurant, concepts related to persuad- ing the other would be activated as well. Activation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for goal formation. Concepts have an activation threshold, whereby a goal is not formed unless a certain level of activation is received. The probability of par- ticular goal-relevant information being activated is based on three criteria: fit, strength, and recency. For fit, there need to be a large number of goal- related concepts that are relevant to the current situation. The strength of the activation is deter- mined by how frequently the concepts have been activated in the past; information that has been triggered frequently in the past possesses a stronger activation level than does content that has not been activated as much. Finally, recency is defined by when the concepts were last activated, with more recently activated concepts being more accessible in memory than those that have not been activated as recently. Goals are a cognitive product of this activated information, such that what constitutes a goal is assumed to be reflective of the most situa- tionally relevant and appropriate information.

Types and Properties of Goals

There are three general types of goals that people seek to achieve through interpersonal communica- tion. Self-presentation or identity goals reflect concerns about the image of who we are and how we want to be perceived by others. Relational

130 Communication Goal Theories

goals include desires to develop, maintain, or neglect particular relationships. Instrumental con- cerns involve obtaining some sort of tangible resource, getting others to do us a favor, or accom- plishing some sort of task. These goals often co- occur or shift between one another. Communication is often framed by an instrumental goal such as problem solving or gaining compliance from another, yet identity or relational concerns often become more salient throughout a discussion. For example, a common problem among roommates concerns keeping their apartment clean. One roommate may confront another with the instru- mental goal of figuring out a way to solve the problem of cleaning the apartment. However, con- sider if the other roommate replies, “You are such a slob; it’s like we live in a barn!” In response, the roommate may consider it more important to pur- sue a self-identity–related goal to reestablish that he or she is a neat and good person instead of the initial instrumental concern. This shift in goals during a conversation reflects a shift in goals from proactive (i.e., goals that guide a discussion) to reactive (i.e., goals in response to another).

Interaction goals are assumed to exist at many levels of specificity within a hierarchical goal struc- ture; higher-level goals subsume lower-level goals. Higher-level goals are abstract. For example, a goal “to do well in school” has many meanings and may be achieved in a variety of ways. Higher- level goals are pursued via a variety of lower-level basic goals that are more proximal and concrete and facilitate specific behaviors that are pursued in the service of attaining more abstract, higher-level goals. For example, as part of doing well in school, a person could pursue the concrete goal of study- ing for 3 hours each night. The pursuit and achievement of a goal are more likely if the lower- level goal does not conflict with higher-order goals. Further, clear, attainable goals produce higher lev- els of performance than general intentions do.

Goals may also be defined and organized in terms of their importance, which reflects the partic- ular value or salience of a goal relative to other goals. Important goals are motivating and energiz- ing. Deciding that a goal is important motivates us to pursue the goal as well as to stay committed to its pursuit. Thus, the occurrence of an important goal directs cognitive processing resources toward the pursuit of that goal and encourages the production

of behaviors structured toward the realization of that goal, in place of other behaviors that are not directly related to the most important goal.

While sometimes the most important goal is the one that guides what we say and do, research with Dillard’s GPA model suggested that goals may function differently during interactions. The GPA model distinguished between primary and second- ary goal functions. Primary goals define the focus of an interaction and answer the question, What is going on here? For example, in order to get a good grade on a group project, you may possess a goal to persuade your teammates to start the project early. This goal, in turn, should drive you to con- front and persuade your teammates about the proj- ect. Secondary goals are concerns that shape and constrain what people say as they go about pursu- ing a primary goal. Dillard specified five categories of secondary goals: (1) identity goals, which reflect desires to act consistent with one’s beliefs; (2) inter- action goals, or desires to maintain a positive image, saying things that are relevant and appro- priate and protective of the image of the other person in the interaction; (3) relational resource goals, which reflect desires to maintain relation- ships; (4) personal resource goals, which reflect concerns about maintaining one’s time, money, or safety; and (5) arousal management goals, as reflected in concerns to reduce anxiety or nervous- ness. While primary goals define what an interac- tion is about, secondary goals “pull” the conversation by constraining what people say. For example, a primary goal to persuade teammates to start the project early may be constrained by sec- ondary concerns to get along with the other team- mates and to make sure that they like you.

Another defining property of goals is their dif- ficulty. Goal difficulty may be defined according to perceived performance in goal pursuit. When self- satisfaction is contingent on the attainment of challenging goals, more effort is expended than if easy goals are adopted as sufficient. In other words, the harder the goal, the more people work to attain it and the greater their performance. Difficulty may also be defined in terms of the num- ber of important goals that an individual attempts to pursue. Managing multiple concerns involves managing more information; thus the more goals a person seeks to pursue at any one time, the more difficult goal achievement will be.

131Communication Goal Theories

Goals and Planning

GPA theories commonly assume that goals stimu- late planning processes designed for goal achieve- ment. Plans are cognitive; they constitute knowledge about the preconditions, contingencies, and actions that may facilitate goal pursuit and achievement. Our knowledge of plans may come from a variety of sources, including our own prior experiences, observations of how others have pursued goals, imagined hypothetical interactions, or recommen- dations from others. Planning refers to the psycho- logical and communication processes involved in recalling, generating, selecting, implementing, modifying, and negotiating plans. Planning how to implement a goal occurs to some extent before an interaction; however, quite a bit of planning occurs during an interaction as participants define and negotiate their plans together.

Just as there are a variety of goals, so too are there many types of plans that we may pursue, and some plans are more specific than others. Further, certain plans may be more complex or difficult to implement than others. Complex plans include more actions, more diversity of behavior, and more contingencies than simple plans do. Further, some plans may not be appropriate for every circum- stance. Plans are developed and selected with the following considerations in mind: (a) What goals does a situation easily afford? (b) What are the rules and roles associated with the situation? and (c) Is the pursuit of the goal and its associated behaviors socially acceptable?

Monitoring and Revising Goals and Plans

Of course, we are not always conscious of our goals and plans. In some instances, people may behave without any clear goal in mind. This is often the case in routine interactions. But even routine behaviors are reflective of prior conscious and strategic attempts to achieve a goal. Research suggests that although we may not think about our goals and plans all the time, we have a frequent, although fleeting, awareness of our goals and plans during conversations.

While individuals may be able to engage in goal pursuit and achievement with relative ease, some goal pursuit is frequently challenged or thwarted. Sometimes, goals are thwarted when individuals

realize that goal pursuit is not proceeding satisfac- torily. However, goal pursuit may also be chal- lenged during an interaction with another. For example, suppose someone asks you for directions to the campus library. As you describe the path to the library, your questioner says to you, “I don’t understand. Can you tell me a different way?” Thus, the questioner’s lack of understanding has blocked your efforts at pursuing the goal of help- ing the questioner. When a goal or plan is chal- lenged, there are several potential outcomes. An individual may continue a current plan of action toward goal pursuit. Or, an individual may increase his or her efforts in pursuing that goal. Alternatively, an individual may temporarily dis- engage from goal pursuit or abandon that goal altogether. In giving the directions to the library, you may have to change your plan (the directions) to meet the goal of helping the questioner. Or, you may have to abandon the goal of helping altogether if your repeated efforts fail. Berger’s model of plan- ning suggested that revisions are first considered at the lowest or most concrete level of goals and plans and work up the hierarchy to higher-level goal conceptions as goal blockage increases.

A consideration of goals provides a theoretically rich understanding of where communication “comes from” and provides an explanation as to why different people communicate so variably, even in the same situation. As well, the goals-based perspective can provide insight into how intention shapes interaction before, during, and after com- munication occurs.

Jennifer A. Samp

See also Action Assembly Theory; Cognitive Theories; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Intrapersonal Communication Theories

Further Readings

Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plan-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

132 Communication in Later Life

Greene, J. O. (1997). A second generation action assembly theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 151–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals and message production as revealed in a sequential analysis of conflict interactions. Human Communication Research, 33, 27–37.

Samp, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2005). Toward a theoretical account of goals in microlevel message features. Communication Monographs, 72, 23–46.

Waldron, V. R. (1997). Toward a theory of interactive conversational planning. In J. O. Greene (Ed.) Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 195–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

COMMUNICATION IN LATER LIFE

Rather sudden and quite dramatic global increases in the proportions of living older adults, together with the ever-expanding horizons of longevity, make the study of aging very timely. Being inter- disciplinary, this study is explored from radically different vantage points, from the biological to the sociological. Kofi Anan, then secretary general of the United Nations, pronounced 1999 the International Year of the Elderly and established a task force to explore the pressing implications of what he called this “silent revolution.” Although many social and physical disciplines were impli- cated in this enterprise, communication was not. Nonetheless, in the past few decades, our disci- pline has made great strides, empirically and theo- retically, in enlightening us as to the ways in which communication phenomena and processes are crucial constituents of the social construction of aging.

In what follows, theories outside our discipline that provide an important backdrop to social gerontological theory will be briefly described. While focusing on older adults, these theories, rightly, often take on a so-called life span perspec- tive. In other words, they do not vacuously look at older individuals within a narrow temporal frame

(e.g., 65 and older) but, rather, identify how and why the continual management of events across the life span affects people’s later wellness. Not surprisingly, perhaps, many of these theoretical positions are also directed toward understanding and predicting successful aging, and culturally determined dimensions of self-reported life satis- faction (such as a zest for life and independence) are a critical component of this. Thereafter, com- munication and aging theories will be introduced.

Theories From Other Disciplines

Much research on communicating to, about, and from older adults has shown distinct signs of age- ism, and this is so cross-nationally. In line with this, albeit originally devised to show the social dimensions of aging, one of the first well-cited frameworks was disengagement theory. Somewhat discredited these days, this position suggests that older people disengage—as the term suggests—in a seemingly natural way from involving themselves and contributing to society and, moreover, are pas- sively encouraged to do so by younger segments of society. It was felt that disengagement eased the process of ultimate or impending demise for older adults in later life. Erikson’s developmental theory similarly proposes that coming to terms with one’s own death is, and is also seen to be, an important factor in aging successfully. Indeed, a terror man- agement theory perspective on ageism claims that older people are often stereotyped very negatively and hence avoided because their presence can pro- vide anxiety-provoking reminders for younger bystanders of their own inevitable mortality.

In contrast, activity theory suggests that socially engaged older adults (e.g., those with hobbies and responsibilities) are happier and survive longer, with the influential, but empirically challenged, position of Robert Kahn and John Rowe claiming that successful aging is, in part, commensurate with a lack of physical disabilities and ill health. Other theories have invested in notions of being internally in control of one’s environment and of circumstances that become developmentally more and more important in the second portion of the life span. Indeed, an important adjunct to this idea is being ready and able to effectively compensate for any growing or emergent deficiencies in such areas as memory or agility. Meshing the latter

133Communication in Later Life

so-called selective optimization with compen- sation theory and models of “possible selves” would allow older persons energetically to keep in sight, or strive to be congruent with, their ideal self. This approach would sidestep any discrepant conceptions of a feared (or even dreaded) self. Indeed, continuity theory affords particular theo- retical weight to people who pay attention to val- ued aspects of stability and their enduring unique characteristics across the life span. That said, iden- tity balance theory suggests that successful aging involves sustaining a demanding equilibrium involving subtly adjusting to or assimilating the former self-concepts and redefining aspects of the self to accommodate necessary changes.

Finally here, Laura Carstensen’s socioemotional selectivity theory proposes different developmental trajectories across the life span to the extent that in later life, individuals become less and less inter- ested in garnering knowledge about the world around them and in meeting different people but, instead, become increasingly more focused on investing in their very close personal relationships and social networks. This is in line with the convoy and intergenerational conflict models, which sug- gest that people opt to associate with those who can provide them solidarity and protect them from disturbing comparisons that can lower self-esteem, such as comparisons to people who are perhaps more socially and cognitively active. Indeed, the resource of being able to reminisce and exchange life narratives (or life reviews) with empathic age peers can be an important buffer to dwelling on self-demise. Yet an important empirically sup- ported aspect of Carstensen’s theory is that it is not old age per se that brings on this socioemotional focus but, rather, feelings of or knowledge about being near to death and finitude—an experience also felt by some young people dealing, rather pre- maturely, with death (e.g., those with HIV or cer- tain cancers).

Communication Theories

Although the foregoing models were not developed within the discipline of communication, they can, nonetheless, be implicitly considered to have com- municative dimensions. This is certainly the case when social networks and life narratives come under scrutiny, as well as when people seek for

predictability and meaning across the life span in what might be regarded as an extension of uncer- tainty reduction and management theories. When we turn now to explicitly communication-oriented theories, then models of intergroup relations and communication become pertinent—as they have done with respect to the study of media and aging. One such theory is Jake Harwood’s social identity theory of gratifications and uses, which shows ways in which older people reinforce their social identities by the media content they select. Communication theories often focus on how cer- tain contexts can make age salient for people and, consequently, induce people not to think of them- selves and others with them as idiosyncratic charac- ters but, rather, representative members of age categories. Consequently, the mediating roles of age stereotyping figure prominently in these theories.

The first of these theoretical positions emerged in the mid-1980s, and one that has guided a sig- nificant proportion of empirical research is the communication predicament of aging model. This framework, which was inspired by communication accommodation theory, proposes vital relation- ships between intergenerational communication and subjective well-being. It attends to how young people’s negative stereotypes of older people (e.g., as frail and despondent) may induce them to adopt overaccommodative communications that are ide- ationally simple, slowed in speech rate, and exag- gerated in intonation. Continued encounters of this nature could lead some older people to won- der if they are truly as incompetent as messages to them from younger people would attest. As a result, and in self-stereotypical fashion, older peo- ple may assume the very ageist communication characteristics (such as a slowed gait and voice perturbations) implied by a younger person’s stance toward them, despite the fact that they may well be quite competent and independent spirits. Such poor self-perceptions may cumulatively lead to social withdrawal, a lessened sense of self- worth, and even somatic changes accelerating physical demise.

An elaboration of this model, as well as the communication enhancement of aging model, attends also to messages that would circumvent the older person experiencing major predicaments and negative outcomes. In the former case, this could be manifest by elders’ use of assertive

134 Communication in Later Life

responses to, say, patronizingly stereotyped speech from younger people and, in the latter, by encour- aging younger people not to categorize older peo- ple by age but to seek the individuality inherent in older adults, encouraging personally accommoda- tive messages toward them and ultimately creating a communicative climate that is empowering to both parties. Indeed, given that older people recip- rocally and negatively stereotype younger people too, applied intervention strategies aimed at pro- moting cross-age healthy relations need to be bilat- erally designed. This would inform both (or all) generational parties implicated, as well as encour- age media literacy regarding age discrimination and prejudice levied against both younger and older age groups.

Mary Lee Hummert and her associates, in their age stereotypes in interactions model, also looked at ways in which the negative feedback cycle inher- ent in the predicament could be interrupted and, instead, yield more favorable outcomes. A number of factors were proposed, including past quality intergenerational contact, high cognitive complex- ity of the younger person, and attributes of the older person that could trigger positive age subste- reotyping (e.g., wisdom). In this case, stereotypical speech toward the older person that could be viewed as condescending and debilitating would be avoided—and what is referred to as normal adult speech substituted.

Valerie Barker and Howard Giles’s so-called integrative model not only identified sociostruc- tural factors and filial piety as determinants of suc- cessful intergenerational encounters but also drew attention to the fact that intragenerational commu- nication climates require modeling too. This was a theoretical advance because cross-cultural studies had shown that what predicted poor indices of psychological well-being for certain (particularly Asian) older populations was not poor younger-to- older communication at all but actually nonaccom- modative stances from same-aged peers. Finally, life span models that promote successful aging should not be applied simply so as to educate people to appreciate the psychological parameters of aging (e.g., “you’re as young as you feel” and “aging is merely a state of mind”) but should also encourage people—even in later young adulthood—to resist harmful self-attributions of aging in their face-to- face and electronic communications (e.g., “I must

be getting on!”). In addition, such a position would encourage people to talk about later aging in sig- nificantly positive emotional linguistic terms (i.e., as an absorbing adventure).

Much theorizing about human communication implicitly (if often not explicitly) revolves around young people—the empirical mainstay diet of our theorizing. But life circumstances change such that communication management necessarily involves different needs, values, and expressive practices at different age junctures and in different contexts, such as the family and workplace. There is a need for the blending of communication and noncom- munication theories of aging on one hand and for forging models more truly centered on life span communication on the other. Such models also need to attend to different subpopulations as they age differently, as well as to perceived age bound- aries and transitions, including retirement. As each of us ages, and more of us do so for longer, the role of theory in middle—as well as older—adulthood becomes an imperative challenge. As communica- tion theory illuminates further the work of aging well, the discipline might soon be recognized as a crucial component of any future task forces on matters of aging.

Howard Giles

See also Accommodation Theory; Communication Across the Life Span; Family Communication Theories; Narrative and Narratology; Social Construction of Reality; Social Identity Theory; Social Support; Uncertainty Management Theories; Uncertainty Reduction Theory; Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

Further Readings

Antonucci, T. C., Jackson, J. S., & Biggs, S. (Eds.). (2007). Intergenerational relations: Theory, research and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 679–925.

Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. In P. B. Baltes & M. M. Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (pp. 1–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barker, V., & Giles, H. (2003). Integrating the communicative predicament and enhancement of aging models: The case of older Native Americans. Health Communication, 15, 255–275.

135Communication Skills Theories

Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 103–123.

Giles, H. (Ed.). (2004). Communication climates and practices. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 19, 261–405.

Harwood, J. (2007). Understanding communication and aging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2005). Ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 207–404.

Nussbaum, J. F., & Coupland, J. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of communication and aging research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pecchioni, L. L., Wright, K. B., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2005). Life-span communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS THEORIES

At the very core, communication skill simply con- cerns the proficiency or quality of one’s communica- tive performance. Just as people’s dancing, driving, or chess playing reflects a certain level of proficiency, so too do their various communication activities, such as listening, public speaking, and making small talk. Com munication skill is one of the most exten- sively and intensively studied of all aspects of human behavior, in part because it is fascinating in its own right, but also because communication skill is vitally important to one’s well-being: Skillful communica- tors are happier and healthier, enjoy more satisfying interpersonal relationships, and perform better in school and in their jobs.

Historical Overview

Questions about communication skill have occupied thinkers for millennia: At least as far back as the Greek Classical Age (5th to 4th centuries BCE), phi- losophers grappled with identifying effective persua- sion techniques. This concern with persuasion has continued as an important area of study to the pres- ent day, but in the past century, examinations of communication skill have extended far beyond issues of persuasion and social influence to include practi- cally every aspect of verbal and nonverbal behavior. And the study of social skill has become a broad,

interdisciplinary enterprise: Examinations of com- munication proficiency are found in virtually every branch of scholarly inquiry regarding human social behavior—from political science to neuroscience.

Disciplinary Developments

Amid the breadth and diversity of investiga- tions of communication skill, certain key events and people stand out. Some of these concern the development of broad intellectual traditions and fields of study. For example, because skills are learned rather than innate, the scientific study of learning processes that began in the late 19th cen- tury bears directly on issues of skilled perfor- mance. The study of learning has, itself, undergone various transformations in perspective, progress- ing through the now familiar epochs of behavior- ism (based on classical conditioning) in the early part of the 20th century, radical behaviorism (based on operant conditioning, most commonly associated with B. F. Skinner) in the middle of that century, and cognitivism during the past 50 years. Other pertinent threads are found in examinations of changes in children’s cognitive abilities as reflected in the rise of developmental psychology in the 1920s and 1930s (with Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and others) and the study of child lan- guage acquisition, which began to flower in the late 1950s. In a similar way, personality psychol- ogy, as represented in pioneering work of people like Gordon Allport in the 1930s, laid the ground- work for a tradition of examining the role of indi- vidual differences in behavioral proficiency that continues to the present.

Among these broad disciplinary developments, three others are particularly relevant. Studies of social influence, group and normative forces, empathy, and so on had occupied researchers since the early 1900s, but in the years immediately fol- lowing World War II, led by scholars like Kurt Lewin, social psychology entered something of a golden age that saw the development of many of the classic concepts and theories that continue to infuse that field. Most pertinent to concerns with communication skills is that in the early 1970s, a particular branch of social psychology emerged. Social cognition placed emphasis on perception of others, attributions concerning their behavior, and memory for what they said and did—with the

136 Communication Skills Theories

attendant assumption that these processes could be systematically biased or flawed.

The second disciplinary thread of particular importance grew from studies of perceptual and motor performance that, like allied studies of learning, date to the end of the 19th century, when early researchers investigated topics such as peo- ple’s ability to send and receive Morse code. With the aforementioned rise of cognitivism, early theo- rists, such as Frederic Bartlett in the 1950s and two decades later Alan Newell, Herbert Simon, John Anderson, and others, advanced the notion that high-level cognitive skills could be studied and understood in ways analogous to those pertaining to perceptual and motor skills.

A third disciplinary movement of special impor- tance was the emergence of speech communication as an academic field. American colleges had taught courses in speech since their founding, but most often these courses were taught in English depart- ments. Around 1900, speech departments began to break off from English, and in 1914 the National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking (today the National Communication Association) was founded. Speech communica- tion’s central focus on skills training has expanded over the intervening years such that departments now routinely offer classes devoted to enhancing skills for public speaking, group discussion, inter- viewing, conflict management, and so on.

A Sampling of Milestone Contributions

The emergence of various fields of study bear- ing on communication skill provided an intellec- tual milieu in which numerous specific conceptual advances were made. These are too numerous to list, but certain examples merit mention. During the 1960s, Albert Bandura developed social learn- ing theory—a rejection of behaviorist, stimulus– response–reinforcement formulations—which instead gave emphasis to the cognitive, symbolic representation of actions and their consequences. Bandura made a compelling case that people can learn from observation and that rather than rely- ing on direct experience of responses and rein- forcement, we very often model the behavior of others. People, then, may act in a socially skilled way because they have observed others and are able to anticipate the consequences of their

actions and monitor and regulate their own behavior.

In a series of books appearing in the 1970s, Michael Argyle and his colleagues advanced a gen- eral model of skilled interaction behavior that sug- gested that people pursue social goals via a sequence of steps: (a) perception of the environ- ment—a process that involves attention, interpre- tation, and so on; (b) translation of perception into performance—a step that includes problem solving and decision making; and (c) motor responses—the generation of overt behaviors. Working from this model, Argyle was able to specify various sources of skill deficits (e.g., in goal setting, planning, behavioral enactment). Moreover, Argyle identi- fied qualities such as expressivity, rewardingness, assertiveness, and so on that distinguish proficient from inadequate interaction behaviors. Yet another contribution of this work was the idea that people could be trained to employ more appropriate per- ceptual, cognitive, and behavioral responses.

A third example of important contributions to the study of communication skill, also from the decade of the 1970s, is found in John Wiemann’s examination of the nature of communication com- petence (and subsequent exploration of that con- struct by Brian Spitzberg, William Cupach, and others). Wiemann emphasized that competence is a dyadic construct in the sense that the competent communicator not only is able to achieve his or her own goals, but moreover to do so in a way that is satisfying for the other party in the conver- sation. In Wiemann’s formulation, five dimensions of competence are identified: (1) empathy, (2) affiliation and support, (3) social relaxation, (4) behavioral flexibility, and (5) interaction man- agement skills (i.e., handling interruptions, taking turns, etc.).

Theories of Skill Acquisition

Because skills are acquired over time, a great deal of research has focused on understanding the pro- cesses that underlie skill development. This research shows that skill acquisition is typically a gradual process; in fact, studies in a variety of domains (not just communication skills) have shown that expert performance requires approximately 10 years of concerted practice. Much of the work on skill development has involved constructing

137Communication Skills Theories

learning curves that graph performance quality on the y-axis and amount of practice on the x-axis. (In many cases the number of practice trials examined in this research is in the hundreds or even thou- sands.) These learning curves virtually always have a characteristic shape: They show large perfor- mance gains early on, but over time, improvements with practice become smaller and smaller.

Significant to note is that although skill- acquisition curves almost always take the same general form, there are individual differences in the course of skill acquisition: Some people start off bet- ter, learn faster, and achieve higher levels of perfor- mance than others do. Theories of skill acquisition suggest that a variety of personal factors, including intelligence, achievement motivation, and age, will affect the course of performance improvement. Regarding this last point, while it is the case that older adults typically do not acquire new skills as rapidly as their younger counterparts, skills acquired early in life tend to be retained in later years.

The process of skill acquisition is marked by a number of behavioral and cognitive changes, including but not limited to (a) becoming faster or more fluent, (b) making fewer errors, (c) experi- encing reduced cognitive load, and (d) being more flexible and adaptive. Various theories have been developed to explain these changes, but the pre- vailing view focuses on the distinction between declarative and procedural memory. Each of these refers to information held in long-term memory, but declarative information is essentially memory for facts, while procedural information is memory for how to do things. In the standard model, then, early in the process of skill acquisition, a person learns a set of facts or instructions about what to do. It is possible to act on the basis of this declara- tive information, but performance tends to be slow, error prone, and cognitively demanding. With continued practice, a person enters a second stage of skill acquisition, in which the information used to carry out the activity is transformed from declarative to procedural form. At this point it is no longer necessary to keep the instructions for the activity in mind, and as a result, he or she gets faster and experiences less cognitive load. Finally, in the third stage of skill acquisition, the proce- dural memory structures for the activity are strengthened with continued practice (a process which can extend over many years).

Theories of Skilled Performance

The Nature of Communication Skill

Despite the fact that it has been so extensively studied and discussed, there are a number of differ- ent theoretical perspectives on what communication skill actually entails. In part this diversity in perspec- tives arises from the fact that the properties or char- acteristics of a given sample of behavior can be coded at various levels of abstraction. For example, at a molar level, raters might judge whether a person was “friendly” or not. At a more fine-grained level of analysis, however, instances of smiling might be counted and timed. In a similar fashion, the func- tions served by a given action can be understood at various hierarchical levels (e.g., a person may be “answering a question” or “impressing a job inter- viewer”). Despite these, and similar, difficulties, it is possible to posit a rough hierarchy of levels of analysis commonly reflected in models of what con- stitutes communication skill. With no claim of exhaustiveness (i.e., that the framework captures every relevant approach), or of mutual exclusivity (i.e., that any particular model will reflect just one tier), a simple, five-tiered scheme is useful for impos- ing some order on a complex domain.

At the most molar level of the hierarchy are properties of skilled behavior identified in the aforementioned communication competence per- spective. Certainly there are differences in the spe- cifics of various formulations, but models in this vein generally emphasize that competent commu- nication is characterized by (a) effectiveness and (b) appropriateness. That is, the competent com- municator is able to accomplish his or her goals while also acting in a socially appropriate way. A person who is effective in achieving his or her objectives, but does so by threatening, bullying, lying, and so on, would not be considered compe- tent, nor would one who is polite, ethical, and pleasant, but unable to “close the deal.”

A second hierarchical level for thinking about what constitutes communication skill derives from theoretical perspectives that emphasize that all social interactions involve the mutual presentation and negotiation of “social reality”—including the identities of the interactants, the nature of their relationship, and the definition of the social setting (e.g., the purpose of the interaction, standards of appropriate behavior). It is not unusual that one

138 Communication Skills Theories

person’s view of self, other, relationship, and situ- ation may differ considerably from that of his or her interlocutor. The skilled communicator, then, is sensitive to the implications of his or her own presentation of social reality, the ways in which the perspective of the other may be different, and ways of accommodating those differences or negotiating a mutually acceptable perspective.

Moving yet another step in the direction of more molecular conceptions of communication skill are views that emphasize general properties of behavior that are more or less skilled. It is this level of abstraction in the coding of behavior that tends to be reflected in people’s everyday characteriza- tion of their own and others’ actions (so, for example, we commonly think and talk about peo- ple as being friendly, rude, and so on). There are obviously a great many of these general dimen- sions relevant to communication skill, and what counts as skillful varies to some extent with culture and context, but among theories focusing on this level of analysis, emphasis is often given to quali- ties such as being (a) other-oriented (i.e., attentive and responsive to the other), (b) affirming (i.e., positive and supportive rather than caustic and punishing), (c) flexible (i.e., creative and adaptive), (d) fluent, and (e) relaxed and poised.

A fourth level reflected in characterizations of communication skill focuses on information pro- cessing capabilities required to act in an effective and appropriate manner. These mental activities include those related to taking in and making sense of the stimulus environment and those involved in behavioral production. Thus, on the input-processing side of the system, key compo- nents of skill include allocation of attention to relevant stimuli, listening, comprehension, social categorization, and appropriate inference making. With respect to behavioral production, the skilled communicator is able to plan and choose among behavioral alternatives, monitor and edit his or her behavior, and translate abstract conceptions of what to do and say into actual, intelligible verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

A final level of analysis seen in conceptions of communication skill is perhaps the most obvious and harkens back to Argyle’s pioneering work mentioned earlier. Here the focus is on overt behavioral features (e.g., speech rate, occurrence of disfluencies, direction and duration of eye gaze,

discrepancies between message channels). Research dedicated to examining such molecular behavioral features indicates that, among others, behaviors perceived as more socially skilled include more eye contact, more smiling, more gestures, and fewer adaptors (i.e., fidgeting). In the verbal channel, behaviors such as asking more questions and paying compliments are perceived as skillful actions.

Sources of Variation in Communication Skill

One of the primary factors motivating the study of communication skill is the problem of variation in proficiency—a problem that manifests in numer- ous guises: Why are some people more skilled than other people? Why do people act in a more skillful way at certain times and in certain situations than in others? And why are individuals more skilled in some communication activities (e.g., making casual conversation) than in others (e.g., public speaking)?

These are compelling questions, and a great many theories have been developed to address them, but among these theories, certain themes and approaches are especially noteworthy. Some shortcomings in communication proficiency have their roots in cognitive and information processing deficits, as, for example, in cases of autism and age-related dementia. Among the population not characterized by problems such as these, the study of variation in communication skill very often involves examination of (a) motivation and ability, (b) stable individual-difference factors, or (c) state variables.

Examinations of the role of motivation and abil- ity in communication proficiency are predicated on the notion that skilled performance requires both the ability to act in an effective and appropriate way and the motivation to do so. The person who does not know what to do (or how to do it) is unlikely to act in a socially skilled way. By exten- sion, the individual who does know what to do but is not motivated to put that knowledge into prac- tice is likely to behave in a suboptimal fashion.

Almost certainly, the most common approach to examining variability in communication skill is to locate the source of cross-individual differ- ences in proficiency in relatively enduring trait- like individual-difference factors. Examples of such individual-difference variables are numerous

139Communication Theory of Identity

indeed, but among the most prominent are extro- version, self-monitoring, and cognitive complexity. While the literature on the role of such variables in communication skill is extensive and very often produces statistically significant effects, it is impor- tant to note that these relationships tend not to be large, rarely accounting for more than 10% of the variance in actual behavior (as opposed to self- reports of behavior, responses to hypothetical scenarios, etc.).

In contrast to relatively enduring person fac- tors, state variables refer to characteristics of persons that change over comparatively short time spans (i.e., days, hours, or even minutes). Among such state variables is the individual’s level of physiological arousal—a factor that is particularly interesting because some evidence suggests that the relationship between arousal and proficiency is curvilinear: Performance improves with increasing arousal up to some point, but beyond that, still higher levels of arousal result in performance decrements. Other examples of state variables include various moods and emotions, most prominently social anxiety— the nervousness and “butterflies” accompanying social interaction that have been shown to be associated with a variety of behavioral manifesta- tions generally taken to be less competent or skill- ful. In contrast, positive moods tend to be associated with greater creativity and increased social engagement. Still other state variables related to social proficiency include stress, drug ingestion (e.g., “alcohol myopia”), and lack of sufficient sleep.

John O. Greene

See also Cognitive Theories; Communication and Language Acquisition and Development; Competence Theories; Facework Theories; Impression Management; Intercultural Communication Competence; Learning and Communication; Social and Communicative Anxiety

Further Readings

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 353–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delia, J. G. (1987). Communication research: A history. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 20–98). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. O. (2009). Communication skills. In H. T. Reis & S. K. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. O., & Burleson, B. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hargie, O. D. W. (Ed.). (2006). The handbook of communication skills (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 3–57). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). Social skills and communication. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. G. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta- analysis (pp. 89–107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COMMUNICATION THEORY OF IDENTITY

The communication theory of identity (CTI) was developed by Michael Hecht and colleagues; the theory emerged in the 1980s as part of a shift from considering identity a central element of human existence to identity as a social phenome- non. While earlier views emphasized the Western notion of “self” as a single, unified identity, this broader conceptualization argues that humans are inherently social beings whose lives revolve around communication, relationships, and communities and who operate from multiple and shifting iden- tities. As a result, identities and identification are key processes through which people and groups orient themselves to each other and the world around them.

From this beginning, a framed or layered per- spective emerged in the early 1990s that described

140 Communication Theory of Identity

identity as multifaceted, including personal, enacted, relational, and communal frames. Hecht and colleagues were studying interethnic commu- nication with the expectation that identity would influence these processes and they, in turn, would lead to outcomes such as satisfying communica- tion. However, the data did not fit this model. Instead, identity and communication influenced outcomes jointly. The need to explain these find- ings and emerging research on media representa- tions of identity led to an examination of research conceptualizing identity as a social process and the CTI view of identity as consisting of four frames.

The personal frame encompasses what has traditionally been thought of as self and self- concept—the ways an individual conceives of self. The enacted frame is the performance or expres- sion of identity. CTI argues that the enactments themselves are a frame of identity—that communi- cation is identity and not just caused or influenced by it. As a result, managing or negotiating identity is a central process. Next, the relational frame of identity refers to identities that are invested in rela- tionships, exist in relationship to each other, and are ascribed in and through relationships. For example, being a parent requires a child, and who we are is established and defined through identities that are ascribed to us by others. Identities also exist as characteristics of communities (communal frame). Media tell us, for example, what it means to be successful. Communal identities are held in common by groups rather than individuals. Finally, these identity frames are said to interpenetrate or intertwine with each other. For example, one’s view of self as a man or women (personal identity) is juxtaposed to how others see us as men or women (relational identity), as well as how one’s communities (communal identity) define these social positions.

While the CTI has many other aspects, the con- ceptualization of identity as social, the interpene- tration of the four frames, and the management of these identities form the core of the theory. One implication is that at any time we are likely to be experiencing multiple, intersecting identities, some of which are group based, or communal. People rarely operate out of a single identity; rather mul- tiple identities guide their thoughts and behaviors. This precept had not been well represented in research, and as a result, ethnic communities were

often seen as homogeneous. CTI-related research, in contrast, examined diverse ways of experiencing these identities. For example, studies by Hecht and Sidney Ribeau examined different labels used by members of the African American community and how these labels manifested themselves in relation- ships, behaviors, and thoughts.

This research also suggested some of the ways in which identity management can be problematic. Not only is there a tendency to see members of a group as homogeneous, but the potential conflicts that emerge from competing enactments of identi- ties must be skillfully negotiated. For example, the work of Michael Hecht and Sandra Faulkner on Jewish American identity described not only the ascriptions others make to group members but also multiple and fluid communal identities, members’ own insider/outsider status, the “closetable” nature of this potentially stigmatized identity, and how all these factors get negotiated inside and outside the group. Specific strategies for revealing identity align along an explicit–implicit dimension that is influ- enced by the relationship type (especially the pres- ence of romance) and in the greater societal context of isolation and “otherness.” In closer relationships and more supportive contexts, identities may be overtly discussed and negotiated (e.g., how all mem- bers will get to celebrate their own holidays and even aid in these enactments), as opposed to the more covert practices that go on when discrimina- tion and prejudice are rife. These findings demon- strate the power of the theory to focus on the dynamics of identity—how it changes and evolves.

Another line of work focusing on these dynam- ics was initiated by Eura Jung in his 2004 disserta- tion on identity gaps, which are defined as disconnects between and among the various frames that challenge identity management. Since com- munication and human relations are inexact, there are often discrepancies among how we see our- selves (personal identity), how others see us (rela- tional identity), and how we express ourselves (enacted identity). These identities also may differ from communal representations, especially when communal representations are stereotypic. These gaps have proven problematic for effective com- munication, as well as mental health, across differ- ent groups and situations. For example, Jung and Hecht found that Korean immigrants who come from a homogeneous society into a racially

141Communicative Action Theory

segmented and hierarchical U.S. society often experience gaps in identity, especially when they occupy “middle person status” between higher status Whites and lower status Blacks and Latinos in inner cities. These gaps have been shown to produce depression. These gaps also have proven problematic in grandparent–grandchild relation- ships, as shown in work by Jennifer Kam.

CTI also has directed work on youth identity and health. As a guiding force in Michael Hecht and Michelle Miller-Day’s Drug Resistance Strategies Project, begun in the late 1980s, CTI has been used to study Latino identity and substance use as well as to develop an evidence-based, multi- cultural, middle school substance abuse prevention curriculum called “keepin’ it REAL.” The preven- tion curriculum was infused with the identities of the audience through its basis in narrative and nar- rative performance. The principle of cultural grounding, an approach to health-message design developed by Michael Hecht and Janice Krieger, emerged from this work and guides prevention message construction. These messages may address different frames, but it is argued that focusing on indigenous narratives about identity and the iden- tities most salient to these narratives is essential to effective health messages.

Since 2000, CTI has been guiding a number of new lines of research that demonstrate its encom- passing and expansive view of identity. Culture has often been defined in terms of nationality, race, and ethnicity; CTI encourages a broader definition consisting of multiple frames of identity. For example, on a communal level, rurality is defined by population density and/or proximity to dense population areas. These definitions have not been useful in public health campaigns except in noting that rural communities tend to be under- served. As a result, Janice Krieger is exploring the construct rural identity as it reflects the other frames. Online communities also are sources of identity and locations for identity expression. CTI research by Jennifer Warren has demonstrated how different aspects of identity influence online health information seeking by lower income African American women and is being used to develop smoking interventions targeted at mem- bers of this ethnic group. From the social- networking sites to health information seeking on the Web, identities are implicated in the online

world. Finally, identities have proven useful when targeting health messages to groups or tailoring them to individuals. Messages designed to include identity representations and to appeal to salient identities are proving effective in health cam- paigns. The multifaceted nature of CTI makes it ideal for understanding the new global village, with its electronic and face-to-face connectivities and emerging sense of multiple identities.

Michael L. Hecht

See also Co-Cultural Theory; Cultural Contracts Theory; Cultural Identity Theory; Health Communication Theories; Identity Theories; Social Construction of Reality; Social Interaction Theories; Symbolic Interactionism

Further Readings

Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002—A research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76–82.

Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Pitts, M. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 21–42). New York: Peter Lang.

Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Ribeau, S. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hecht, M. L., & Miller-Day, M. (in press). The drug resistance strategies project: A communication approach to preventing adolescent drug use. In L. Frey & K. Cissna (Eds.), Handbook of applied communication. London: Taylor & Francis.

Hecht, M. L., Warren, J., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. (2004). Communication theory of identity. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

COMMUNICATIVE ACTION THEORY

Jürgen Habermas, the contemporary German phi- losopher and social theorist, formulates what are arguably his most important ideas in his theory of communicative action. This account of social

142 Communicative Action Theory

action features communication as an integral component and attempts to provide a normative grounding for social and critical theory. Habermas can be considered a second-generation member of the Frankfurt School of social thought, but he dif- fers from such thinkers as Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno with his reflective defense of enlightenment themes. While his two-volume work The Theory of Communicative Action cov- ers many topics, this entry will focus on those components most relevant to accounts of commu- nicative activity and their normative assessment.

Habermas’s theory of communicative action aims to provide a normative basis for social theory and the critique of particular forms of social orga- nization. Instead of selecting norms based on social theories such as Marxism or abandoning any sort of covering norms, as many in postmodern strains of thought do, Habermas wants to continue the project of enlightenment and identify universal notions of truth and freedom. Instead of grounding these in nature or human nature, Habermas places these firmly in the intersubjective action that takes place in certain communicative encounters.

In general, Habermas’s account of human action is twofold. Humans can employ what is called strategic action, or action that is based on the real- ization of specific ends by known means. For instance, building a bridge will involve a variety of interactions between humans and material objects, and skilled engineers will be able to predict what actions are necessary to construct a bridge that has certain structural virtues. The second sort of action is communicative action, or action oriented toward achieving a rationally held consensus. Whereas many social theories and critiques portray human interaction as merely being the interplay of various forces (as is the case in strategic action), Habermas attempts to build a theory that does justice to another force that is evident in human interaction— the force of reason.

Habermas discusses this distinction between strategic and communicative action by extending the work of speech act theorists such as J. L. Austin. Strategic action in language tends to utilize what Habermas calls perlocutionary speech acts. These are uses of language that attempt to achieve some end in the world; the actual utterance is simply the means. These are strategic insofar as they operate on the level of cause–effect and nonrational force.

An example of such utterances would be a shout to “Stop!” that literally stops people in their path, or to lie to individuals who do not know that they are being misled. Both of these cases operate, not on the level of informed and free consensus, but in a causally specifiable fashion. The first utterance is effective because it is loud and arresting; the second utterance is effective because it involves a difference in knowledge between the liar and the lied-to individual.

In contrast to strategic action, communicative action is action that is oriented toward the reaching of understanding and, as such, typically involves illocutionary speech acts. These are utterances that attempt to advance some claim about the world to an auditor. Habermas calls these validity claims, and they can be divided into three general types. Constative claims are representations of some state of affairs in the objective world (“You drove my car yesterday”); these are the sorts of claim that are liable to judgments of truth. Another type of valid- ity claim is a regulative claim, or a statement assert- ing that some state of affairs (actual or possible) in the social world is right or desirable. An example of such a claim would be “It was wrong for you to borrow my car without permission yesterday.” The third type of claim is the expressive claim. These are claims that assert a certain subjective state of the speaker is the case, and are thus liable to judg- ments of truthfulness. An example of such a claim is “I am upset that you borrowed my car without permission yesterday.” Another important implica- tion of the theory of communicative action is that any utterance having illocutionary force can be criticized on grounds relating to any of these sources of validity. One can criticize any claim insofar as claims all assume some state of affairs in the external world, they involve relations between people (and the assumption that one is justified in making that claim to that hearer in the first place), and they are assumed to represent the actual thoughts of the speaker (and hence be truthful).

Communicative action occurs when individuals are oriented toward exchanging utterances (of the above three types of validity claims) in an attempt to reach an understanding about the claims advanced. In other words, a speaker advances some claim about the objective, social, or subjective world, and a hearer either accepts it or asks for reasons that claim ought to be accepted. The

143Community

speaker is then under an obligation to provide such reasons. Ideally, rational and free discourse proceeds in communicative action until such an informed consensus is reached on the validity claims in question, although Habermas admits that such progress toward consensus is often rarely achieved in actual practice. Instead, this ideal of communica- tive action can be used to describe some practices in human society (i.e., deliberative discourse in policy- making) and can be used to critique other commu- nicative practices (such as the use of fear appeals in political advertisements).

These themes are incorporated in Habermas’s notion of the public sphere, or places where people can openly explore meanings and ideas, as well as in the ideal speech situation, which is assumed by all engaging in communicative action. He argues that the mere act of trying to get someone else to agree with the claim you are advancing and the reasons you offer for that claim means you—and the other person—are committed to certain pre- suppositions: (a) that all individuals are using the same linguistic expressions in a consistent way; (b) that no relevant voices have been excluded or forced out of the interaction; (c) that no force is employed except the force of the better reason (no threats of personal harm, promises of rewards, etc.); (d) that all participants are motivated by the search for consensus and agreement through dia- logue; and (e) that no validity claim is immune from challenge by participants. Practices, groups, and organizations can be criticized insofar as they fail to approximate such an ideal speech situation, and they can be reformed to encourage more com- municative action.

Scott R. Stroud

See also Critical Rhetoric; Critical Theory; Frankfurt School; Public Sphere; Speech Act Theory

Further Readings

Cooke, M. (1994). Language and reason: A study of Habermas’s pragmatics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.

McCarthy, T. (1994). The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Outhwaite, W. (1994). Habermas: A critical introduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

White, S. K. (1995). The Cambridge companion to Habermas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

COMMUNITY

Community is a much-used term in communica- tion research and theorizing, occurring in a vari- ety of everyday senses and as a central concept in several intellectual traditions. As an ordinary term in speech and writing, community has (at least) five different meanings. A first and one of the most common ones, community1, is to equate the term with the set of people who inhabit a certain geographic place. In this meaning, community is a geographic unit bigger than family and neighbor- hood but smaller than the state, region, or nation. Community1 is the name for the people who live in local units such as cities, towns, and school districts (e.g., the Denver community).

A second meaning, community2, is as a term of reference for a discrete set of people who share a culturally marked identity. In the United States, media frequently make claims about the gay or older community, the Hmong or Latino commu- nity, the Muslim or Jewish community, and so on. In this second use, community is a synonym for identity groups. Community2 is regularly used to refer to the groups that the larger society has mar- ginalized or stigmatized in some way. Related to this second meaning is a third one, community3, which treats community as a set of people who share an interest or activity (e.g., the snowboarding community, the Facebook community, the vegan community).

Community’s fourth meaning, community4, is as a positive sentiment that may be enacted, accomplished, pursued, or endangered. An aim of most groups and organizations, whether they exist face-to-face or virtually, online, is to establish a “sense of community” among participants. Groups that succeed in building community are ones that through their communication have created a sense of caring and connection among the participants.

144 Community

The last everyday meaning for community, community5, is as a pole in two pairs of political values that both depend on and are in tension with each other. Within this meaning, commitment to the well-being of a group (community) is con- trasted with a valuing of individual rights. Here, the needs and demands of people living together with bonds of connection and mutual responsibil- ity, community5, are contrasted with the imper- sonal, more minimalist rights of society.

These ordinary meanings of community comple- ment as well as contradict each other. Community as a place, an identity, and an interest often come together, and when they intersect, the focal com- munity frequently pursues community as a desired sentiment. At the same time, the demands of com- munity1 and community5 (the social needs of a geographic-based group) may conflict with the needs or wants of identity or interest groups (com- munity2 and community3). These ordinary mean- ings of community are to be found in many corners of communication scholarship. Communication Yearbook 28, a handbook of review articles, made community an organizing concept for 2004. The titles of the articles in this yearbook reflected the multiple meanings of community. Consider but three: “Communication in the Community of Sport,” “Meetings: Discursive Sites for Building and Fragmenting Community,” and “Ideal Collaboration: A Conceptual Framework of Community Collaboration.”

In communication theorizing there are two tradi- tions, or more accurately, two families of traditions, in which community is a key concept. The first fam- ily of traditions is descriptive studies of speech, discourse, or practice communities, predominately community1 to community3 meanings; the second family of traditions involves normative theorizing about how communication links to community and the usually positive but sometimes negative effects of community, community4 and community5. Each of these theoretical traditions builds on the ordinary meanings of community, albeit pulling the concept into a theoretical frame that raises very particular issues about communication.

Community as a Descriptive Term

A long-standing tradition in which community is an important concept is ethnography of

communication studies begun by the anthropolo- gist Dell Hymes and brought to communication in the mid-1970s by Gerry Philipsen. In ethnography of communication, the key unit of analysis is the speech community. Philipsen, for instance, studied a neighborhood of White, ethnic, urban, working- class males in an American city in the 1960s. He named his speech community Teamsterville, and his research made visible how members of this community held distinctive beliefs about categories of people such as women and children and spoke in culturally identifiable ways that differed from middle-class American practices.

While many of the speech communities that have been investigated involved sets of people who lived in a relatively small geographic locale and engaged in face-to-face exchanges, a speech com- munity need not be geographically constrained. Tamar Katriel, for instance, studied the cultural speaking practices of Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, Kristine Fitch studied middle-class Colombians in Bogotá, and Donal Carbaugh investigated middle- class Americans’ communicative beliefs and practices.

Research seeking to understand speech commu- nities has a centrally descriptive thrust. Its goal is to make understandable the interpretive and speaking practices, sometimes called speech codes, of an identifiable set of people. To facilitate this descrip- tive enterprise, researchers use the SPEAKING mnemonic, initially developed by Hymes, to direct attention to important facets of a community’s symbolic practices. SPEAKING includes the setting (S); the participants (P); the end purpose of an event (E); the sequence of acts that comprise par- ticular events (A); the emotional key (K); the instru- mentalities, that is, whether an occasion is face-to-face or mediated (I); the norms of interac- tion and interpretation (N); and the genre (G) of an activity. Although the kinds of people that could be a speech community has expanded across the years, its center has been a group of people bound by nationality and geography, and often also ethnicity and social class.

A related concept is that of discourse commu- nity. A discourse community, in John Swales’s words, is a “socio-rhetorical network.” In con- trast to the national, geographic foci of speech communities, discourse communities are created through people’s sharing of interests, aims, and

145Community

activities. Occupational groups such as accoun- tants or social workers are discourse communities, as are people who share a recreational interest in a television series, stamp collecting, or hip-hop. Members of discourse communities come together occasionally for joint activities such as competi- tions or conferences, and what makes them a dis- course community is their distinctive ways of communicating. Discourse communities use socially marked vocabularies and engage in spe- cific genres of communication; they also share ways of segmenting and understanding the social world with regard to their foci.

Community of practice is a final way of iden- tifying community in terms of a descriptive unit. Community of practice, a term coined by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, refers to a set of people who share a purpose and pursue that purpose jointly in shared practices. Community of prac- tice has much in common with discourse com- munity, but it has been significantly more influential as an idea in communication and related disciplines. Communities of practice look at teams in a workplace, classroom groups, or any set of people spending significant amounts of time together. In education, for instance, the notion of community of practice has changed the way learning is conceptualized, moving it away from an individual, cognitive action and toward seeing learning as distributed among a set of people and accomplished by immersion in shared social practices.

People are generally members of multiple com- munities of practice. Whenever people come together in groups to do things—in school, at church, in work groups, and in political or recre- ational groups—they are involved in a community of practice. Most people are central members of some communities of practice and peripheral mem- bers in others. It is because community of practice turns attention to the communication processes that create and sustain people’s definition of what they are about and fosters connections to others involved in the practice that the idea has been so influential in communication. Ana Ostermann, for example, compared the communicative practices of an all-woman police unit and a feminist crisis center dealing with women who were victims of domestic violence. She found these two occupa- tional groups had very different ways of talking

with the female victims and tied these differences to identifiable values in each community.

Community as a Normative Ideal

A different sense of community can be traced to Aristotle’s Politics. For Aristotle, every state was a community. Communities were created by a state’s men speaking with each other about which pro- posed courses of action were fair and just. In Aristotle’s time a community included only the nonslave adult males in a relatively small geo- graphic area. It was these people who would come together to deliberate and make decisions about the community, and it was the communication about political matters that created a sense of con- nected caring.

David Depew and John Peters provide a histori- cal overview of how community was taken up by different thinkers in the United States, with each giving the idea a different inflection. At the begin- ning of the 20th century, George Herbert Mead and Robert Park were interested in exploring how communities in Chicago came into being through communication. Community formation was a major concern. In contrast to the descriptive notion of community, in which people may pursue many types of aims, the normative notion of community foregrounds political aims. A “great community,” American Progressives believed, was made possible by the widespread availability of newspapers because newspapers provided different segments of American society the information that would enable the segments to be knit together. Although self and community for people like Rousseau were pitted against each other, for scholars such as Mead and John Dewey, the two terms were inter- dependent and created through interaction. Selves and communities came into being together.

A problem in contemporary U.S. life is that people much less frequently come together in civic, neighborhood, and church groups to plan and carry out activities together. The relative absence of social ties—what Robert Putnam called social capital in his influential book Bowling Alone— creates a society in which there is no sense of com- munity, no commitment to a social good that is larger than the needs of individuals.

Although community is usually treated as a solution to the troubles of American life, there is a

146 Community

recognition that communities may also be repres- sive. In Democracy and Education, Dewey advanced two criteria for a good community: First, in a good community, the interests that were shared among members were numerous and var- ied. Second, the interplay between a community and other forms of association were free and full. In essence, then, a good community is not a walled off cult but a group that is diverse and connected to other associations of people.

Another version of the normative notion of community can be seen in the political movement that has been dubbed communitarianism. In the early 1970s, the philosopher John Rawls wrote a widely influential book, A Theory of Justice. Rawls argued that the main goal of government is to gain and then distribute fairly to individuals the economic resources and liberties that exist within a society. Many scholars were critical of his posi- tion, seeing it as advancing a set of universal crite- ria for making decisions that unfairly advantaged those who already had power and influence. People, these critics argued, are situated in particu- lar times, places, and cultural groups. Rather than conceiving of citizens as a bundle of individual “rights,” communitarians argued that we needed to see people as being part of social and political groups in which groups of people had responsi- bilities to each other; these groups, not just indi- viduals, were entitled to shape what a society would construe as the societal good.

Concluding Thoughts

In a recent review essay, Erin Underwood and Lawrence Frey examined how the term community has been used in communication research. As just about everyone writing about community does, they note that the term is overused, a “purr word” that people use because it generates positive feelings. Underwood and Frey argue for a dialectical concep- tualization of community that recognizes how over- lapping senses of community frequently co-occur, connecting the traditions of community described above. Drawing on an ethnographic study of a set of people living together in a home for people with AIDS, Maura Adelman and Frey show how the people who lived together created a community of practice that involved physical and communicative ways to help each other, to recognize people’s lived

experiences, and to commemorate those who died. In participating in this community of practice, mem- bers used communicative rituals to create a sense of community. That is, communicative practices within the community were used to create a sense of com- munity for all who lived there.

Community is a concept rich in association and emotional power; it is a strategically ambiguous idea, but one that treats communication as central to who people are and how connections are built with others. For these reasons, we can expect com- munity will remain a favored concept in communi- cation theorizing and research.

Karen Tracy

See also Bona Fide Group Theory; Community of Practice; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Ethnography of Communication; Interpretive Communities Theory; Network Society; Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective on Groups

Further Readings

Bell, D. (2003). Communitarianism and its critics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. New York: Harper & Row.

Depew, D., & Peters, J. D. (2001). Community and communication: The conceptual background. In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 3–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kalbfleisch, P. (Ed.). (2004). Communication yearbook 28. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Milburn, T. (2004). Speech community: Reflections upon communication. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 411–444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ostermann, A. C. (2003). Communities of practice at work: Gender, facework, and the power of habitus at an all-female police station and a feminist crisis intervention center in Brazil. Discourse & Society, 14, 473–505.

Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Cultural patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13–22.

147Community of Practice

Shepherd, G. J., & Rothenbuhler, E. W. (Eds.). (2001). Communication and community. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tracy, K., & Dimock, A. (2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 127–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Underwood, E. D., & Frey, L. R. (2008). Communication and community: Clarifying the connection across the communication community. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 31 (pp. 369–418). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

Community of practice is a concept emphasizing that learning, knowledge, and identity are ulti- mately social processes arising from the collective engagement among members of a community. The theory is grounded in the doings, actions, or prac- tices of individuals that take on meaning as the individuals engage with others in shared activities and interests. For communication study, the theory weaves together concerns of joint activity, meaning making, and identity within situated localities.

A community of practice is marked by three characteristics. First, individuals engage in joint enterprises reflecting a shared domain of interest. Individuals undertake tasks and activities that are linked to a commonly understood interest or aspect of the community. For example, insurance claim processors in an office individually undertake the collective work of responding to claims submitted by clients for compensation of medical expenses. Second, by undertaking joint activities and discus- sions, participants build relationships of mutual engagement; they assist one another, help each other learn how and what to do, and clarify what is meaningful and what is not, without necessarily being explicit about such concerns. Chatting with colleagues about the day’s work provides such opportunities. Third, members of communities develop a shared repertoire of resources over time. A shared practice of experiences, tools, stories, strategies for problems, objects, and materials

results from members’ involvement as practitioners of the community’s domain. As claim processors undertake the routine tasks of their day, they acquire and create a host of things to do and say to enable their successful engagements in their work.

While the term was briefly noted in Etienne Wenger’s dissertation of 1990, the concept was first introduced to a wider audience the following year by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in their book Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Over succeeding years the concept has been articulated further, receiving book-length description by Wenger in his 1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Since then the concept has been explored by its applica- tion to numerous fields and settings in organiza- tions, education, and governmental agencies, among others.

Communities of practice developed from the goal of creating a social learning theory to explain the development of knowledge and membership via social practice. Emphasizing the social nature of the process and seeking an alternative to activity theories, the theory is based on four premises: (1) Humans are social beings, (2) knowledge is situ- ated competence in valued undertakings, (3) know- ing involves active engagement in such undertakings, and (4) learning ultimately produces meaning. Building from the emphasis of legitimate peripheral participation, in which learning is characterized as a feature of community practice as learners move from peripheral to full member status, development of the community of practice theory involves inte- grating concerns of meaning, practice, community, and identity. Broadly, the concept is situated among theories of social practice, which collectively engage the production and reproduction of social resources, coordinated activity, and interpretations, and among theories of identity, which collectively address the social formation of the person and membership among collectives.

Four fundamental dualities make up the concept, each providing a theoretical element extendable in practical application of the theory. The first duality is participation–reification, the process of our nego- tiating meaning by our experience and engagement with the world. As we live, we develop member- ships in social communities, participating and tak- ing part in their recognized doings. In addition, we give form to our experiences, which is what reify

148 Competence Theories

means, by creating tools, symbols, stories, concepts, and material objects that reflect the practices in which we engage as participants. Meaning is mani- fested by the interplay of our participation and the things we create to reify or represent the practices of our communities. In our claims office, we create forms to aid our classifying of claims and talk to one another about the cases we encounter.

The second duality, local–global, emphasizes that practices and identities are locally created and reified. The local ways of undertaking activities, discourses, and materials are particular to this col- lection of members at this locality. It is emergent as individuals work together in response to what binds them together as a collective. As well, our identities as members are tied to the locale and its practice. For example, an entomology lab may have particular ways of organizing experiments that have developed over time in response to the participants’ needs. More broadly, individual com- munities of practice, sharing a focus or domain of interest, may have connections to broader organi- zations or constellations of practices. All entomol- ogy labs share procedures associated with life sciences laboratories in general, presenting global concerns in their local practices. Our identities as well represent our multiple memberships in differ- ent communities.

Identity is further emphasized in the third dual- ity, identification–negotiability. Identification refers to the process of individuals’ investing themselves in the meanings of their communities by partici- pating and reifying practice. It is also socially orga- nized, linked to our perceived membership within the community. But with identification is also rec- ognition that we may have different abilities or powers to shape or negotiate what is meaningful for us within communities. Not everyone in the claims office may adopt various activities as equally meaningful for their understanding and identification within the office.

The fourth duality emphasizes the continuities and discontinuities of learning by noting that prac- tice involves design and emergence. Practice is not simply a context for learning about something else. We learn the practice of a community by our engagement in it, developing our memberships as we do. In this perspective, learning is ongoing across one’s life in communities. Some aspects of practice may appear designed; new employees are

trained to do procedures in ways the supervisor prefers. But collectively, individuals develop ways of undertaking and understanding their activities to be productive members. Practice, then, is an emer- gent structure created by what and how people learn to jointly undertake the meaningful activities associated with their community. Practice is both stable, resistant to change, and adaptable, capable of responding to new concerns of the community.

Robert C. Swieringa

See also Activity Theory; Community; Identity Theories; Learning and Communication; Organizational Socialization and Assimilation

Further Readings

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

COMPETENCE THEORIES

Although competence has been examined from different disciplines and perspectives, it can be simply conceptualized as an individual’s ability to interact appropriately and effectively with another person in a specific context. As a basic need of human beings, competence can be understood as the extent to which a person produces the intended effect in the process of interaction. The concept is usually discussed by social scientists and commu- nication scholars under several generic categories, including fundamental competence, linguistic competence, social competence, interpersonal competence, and relational competence.

Fundamental competence concerns the cognitive ability that helps individuals communicate effec- tively in different situations; social competence emphasizes a person’s specific skills that lead to an effective interaction; linguistic competence focuses

149Competence Theories

more on the knowledge of and the ability to execute language and messages in the process of interaction; interpersonal competence is more goal oriented and concerned with the individual’s ability to accom- plish tasks by demonstrating certain successful com- munication skills; and relational competence highlights the importance of the reciprocal process of interaction, in which the interactants are able to establish relationships with each other to achieve goals. However, all these generic categories can be put under the concept of communication competence.

Debates About Communication Competence

Although the definition of competence is commonly accepted, debates continue to exist among scholars regarding whether competence is a trait, state, or perception. The trait approach argues that compe- tence is an inherent predisposition or ability; thus some people are born to be more competent than others. The state approach argues that competence is based on performance or behavioral skills, which are influenced by the particular context, time, or place of interaction. The perception approach argues that competence is neither an intrinsic trait nor extrinsic skills but is the perception or impres- sion resulting from the characteristics and behaviors of the interactants within the relational or interac- tional context of a communication interaction.

In addition to these debates about the essential nature of competence, another conceptual ambigu- ity related to defining competence is the use of competence and effectiveness in similar and over- lapping ways. Because effectiveness mainly refers to behavioral performance, and competence requires appropriateness, which is based more on individual knowledge about or motivation toward the situation to complete its meaning, competence and effectiveness should not be used interchange- ably. Instead, effectiveness should be considered one of the criteria in conceptualizing competence.

Theoretical Approaches

An array of theories have been developed to con- ceptualize the diversity of approaches to compe- tence, including psychological, social, and critical. Theories of communication competence from the psychological perspective basically focus on mes- sage processing and production. The psychological

perspective of communication competence emphasizes the individual’s mental process underly- ing behaviors. In 2003, Steven Wilson and Christina Sabee specified expectancy theories and attribution theories as the two categories of communication competence theories for message processing; these theories concern how people attend to, interpret, and evaluate communicative behaviors in interac- tion. Wilson and Sabee described goals–plans– action theories and hierarchical theories as the two categories of theories for message production; they concern goal attainment through the process of generating and enacting communicative behaviors.

Theories of communication competence from the social perspective emphasize the relational, functional, and contextual nature of competence. Represented by dialectic theories of human rela- tionship, the social perspective of communication competence takes a dialectical and dialogical stance to examine the change and multiplicity of commu- nicative behaviors in interaction.

The critical perspective for studying communi- cation competence is a less advanced area, draw- ing on the critical metatheoretical approach developed by Jürgen Habermas. Based on the belief that truth is embedded in the universal prag- matic relations between speech acts, between speakers, and between speech situations, this per- spective claims that the emancipated form of life must be anticipated in every act of communica- tion. Thus, competence can be reached only in an open and unconstrained communication context. In other words, communication competence refers to the authentic, accurate, and appropriate exchange of messages in the absence of a dominance– subordination hierarchical structure of social rela- tionship. This approach shows its potential strength when identifying competence in the con- text of intercultural communication.

Common Themes

The theories contained within each of these per- spectives are often incompatible in terms of approaches to communication competence; none- theless, examining the common themes that cut across these differences is important to a compre- hensive understanding of competence. These common themes, based on the criteria of effec- tiveness and appropriateness as valid indicators

150 Competence Theories

of competence, dictate that communication com- petence should comprise three dimensions: cogni- tive, affective, and behavioral abilities.

Cognitive Ability

Cognitive abilities are reflected in the individual awareness of relevant communication situations and their requirements. This situational under- standing may include knowing the verbal context, in which one should know how to make sense in terms of expression; knowing the relationship context, in which one should know how to match the messages to the particular relationship at hand; and knowing the environmental context, in which one should know the constraints imposed by the symbolic and physical environments on message making. This cognitive knowledge is equivalent to self-awareness or self-monitoring in the process of communication. Self-awareness or self-monitoring helps one detect the social appro- priateness of self-presentation and to further con- trol and modify one’s own expressive behaviors to meet the requirements of particular situations.

Affective Elements

The affective perspective of competence mainly concerns personal emotions or changes in feelings caused by different communication contexts or people involved in the interaction. In other words, to be competent in communication, the individual must be able to project and receive positive emo- tional responses in the process of interaction and demonstrate respect for differences between inter- actants. Scholars have identified five common personal attributes that reflect affective ability: self-concept, empathy, open-mindedness, social relaxation, and nonjudgment.

Self-concept is the way we see ourselves, which directly impacts how a person communicates and relates to the surrounding world. A person with positive self-concept, especially self-esteem, is more likely not only to think well of himself or herself and be accepted by others, but also to feel more comfortable and perform better in an ambiguous situation. Other aspects of self-concept, including optimism, extroverted personality, and self-reliance, also contribute to the enhancement of communica- tion competence.

Empathy, or perspective taking, is the ability to see the event from one’s counterpart’s perspective during the interaction. Empathic persons are able to project themselves into another person’s point of view and feel the same feelings and think the same thoughts as that person. Being able to step into another person’s shoes in order to sense what is inside another person’s mind helps the individual adopt different roles as required by different com- munication contexts, which in turn leads to reci- procity, active listening, and the establishment of rapport between the interactants.

Open-mindedness is the willingness to share with others what is on one’s mind. It also is the willingness to recognize, appreciate, and accept different views and ideas from others. This pro- cess of mutual validation and confirmation of each other’s identity is key to fostering a favor- able impression in an interaction.

Social relaxation is the ability to regulate anxi- ety in interactions. A feeling of uneasiness is caused by the uncertainty or unpredictability that is cre- ated by an ambiguous situation during an initial encounter. A less competent person tends to feel insecure psychologically when entering a new situ- ation, in which the social anxiety may lead to rigid posture, hesitation, speech disturbances, and lim- ited communication.

Finally, being nonjudgmental is an effective way to avoid stereotypes and prejudices that prevent a person from listening sincerely and actively to oth- ers during the interaction. In this regard, a lack of communication competence is reflected in a per- son’s tendency to hastily jump to conclusions in conversation without sufficient information. Such evaluative messages often lead to defensive reac- tion from one’s counterparts, putting the interac- tion and the relationship in jeopardy. In contrast, being nonjudgmental fosters a feeling of enjoy- ment of personal differences and allows for the development of a satisfactory and supportive com- munication climate.

Behavioral Aspect

The behavioral aspect of competence is a dimension that concerns the ability to attain com- munication goals through effective application of behavioral skills. Such skills are demonstrated by adroit verbal and nonverbal behaviors that enable

151Competence Theories

an individual to get the job done effectively and appropriately in communication. Five key factors of competent behavioral skills have been identi- fied by scholars: message skills, interaction management, behavioral flexibility, identity man- agement, and relationship cultivation.

Message skills form the foundation of linguistic competence in communication. They demand the knowledge of linguistic rules and the ability to skillfully use verbal and nonverbal language during the interaction. For example, the effective use of communication codes, the ability to identify and distinguish main ideas and message types, and the capacity for organizing, expressing, and evaluating ideas clearly and precisely are important behavioral skills that lead to a competent communication.

Interaction management is the ability to imple- ment the interactional rules of verbal and nonver- bal messages, which mainly refers to conversational turn taking. A competent person is able to make an accurate assessment of the needs of others in order to appropriately initiate, terminate, and take turns in interaction. In other words, in the process of initiating and terminating a conversation, a competent person indicates interest, tolerance, and the ability to orient toward the others in the interaction. A successful interaction management also involves affiliation and support through speech alternation, eye contact, head nods, smil- ing, and physical proximity, which will naturally manifest the personal abilities of attentiveness, perceptiveness, and responsiveness in terms of communication.

Behavioral flexibility shows a person’s ability to adapt to different communication situations by selecting appropriate and effective strategies to achieve personal goals in interaction. Behavioral flexibility is accompanied by a comfortable feeling when interacting with different people in different contexts. In addition to feeling easy and relaxed about getting along with new people and fitting in with different groups of people, a person with behavioral flexibility is also good at making choices in terms of messages to mark the status and relationship of the people involved in the interaction.

Identity management is based on the ability of knowing oneself as an entity, and at the same time being able to inform the counterparts about who they are. Identity cannot be developed alone by

oneself; instead, it is formed through the process of negotiation and reinforcement between the inter- actants in communication, which reflects a dynamic and multifaceted process. Thus, how to display the salience and intensity of each other’s identity in different temporal and spatial situations is the sine qua non of being competent in communication.

The last factor of the behavioral aspect of com- munication competence is the ability to develop a positive relationship with others. Relationship cul- tivation is dictated by the independent and recipro- cal interactions between the two parties; only through this dimension can one’s needs be satisfied and a positive outcome of interaction be attained. Usually, being friendly, showing concern and com- mitment, and displaying courtesy and cooperative- ness during the interaction will ensure the development of a beneficent relationship.

Assessment of Communication Competence

A final issue for the study of communication com- petence that needs to be addressed is how to assess communication competence. Scholars have taken three approaches to resolving this problem: (1) soliciting data from individuals through self- assessment of their own abilities, (2) training raters to provide objective and reliable observations of interactants’ behaviors, and (3) soliciting interac- tants’ views of their counterparts’ communication abilities in communication. The issues and meth- ods of the assessment of communication compe- tence were organized and discussed in depth by Brian Spitzberg in 2003, providing clear direction for future researchers interested in pursuing this specific area of study.

Guo-Ming Chen

See also Cognitive Theories; Communication Goal Theories; Emotion and Communication; Intercultural Communication Competence; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Learning and Communication

Further Readings

Bostrom, R. N. (Ed.). (1984). Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

152 Complexity and Communication

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (2008). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 215–237). New York: Routledge.

Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology No. 2: Pattern of communication behavior (pp. 114–148). New York: Macmillan.

Rubin, R. B. (1985). Communication competence. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.), Speech communication: Essays to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Speech Communication Association (pp. 94–129). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2003). Methods of interpersonal skill assessment. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 93–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185–199.

Wilson, S. R., & Sabee, C. M. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical term. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 3–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

COMPLEXITY AND COMMUNICATION

Sir Isaac Newton argued that the relationships between all physical elements can be measured, predicted, and controlled. Complexity theory, as developed in the 20th century by scientists such as the Nobel laureate chemist Ilya Prigogine, says otherwise, holding that the relationships of many physical elements and organisms are nonlinear. Some theorists in the social sciences have begun to recognize the adaptability of complexity theory to human systems. For example, one of its classic ideas—that “initial conditions make a difference”—which was originally discovered in meteorology simulations, is transferable to human relationships. Meeting an attractive person, say, or beginning an important project is affected by

the precise context of when such an event happens in a sequence of other possibilities.

Inevitably, complexity theory became an umbrella concept that covers a wide span of influ- ences in the hard and soft sciences—from chemis- try and physics to communication and social psychology. It has this breadth because the more a focus on any given system, be it social or physical, is widened to include its supersystem (the layer of influences outside it, such as the weather, external politics, or technological change) and its subsystem (the layer below, such as subordinates, commodi- ties, or outsourced functions), the more complex that system becomes. For example, SEMATECH, the computer research consortium developed in the mid-1980s to regain U.S. market share from Japan, has as its supersystem the computer industry; as its subsystem, it has its various suppliers of products and services. Complexity theory would say that it is impossible to understand SEMATECH as an organization without understanding the industry and its suppliers. And, in fact, a team of research- ers documenting the SEMATECH story in the 1990s showed that the consortium’s leader, Robert Noyce, found it necessary for SEMATECH to invest in the supplier subsystem in order to improve chip-manufacturing performance.

This entry describes two kinds of complexity and then discusses the kinds of communication to be used in response to them. First is structural complexity, a set of conditions characterized by numerosity (e.g., the greater the number, the greater the complexity), diversity, and interdepen- dence of system parts. When combined, these three conditions increase the amount of uncertainty that one finds or must deal with in a given system. Structural complexity, then, describes the condi- tions inherent in that system. Dynamical complex- ity, on the other hand, is the actual process of things changing nonlinearly in a structurally com- plex system. Say, for example, 100 leaders (numer- osity) from 100 sovereign nations (diversity), whose fates are connected, must reach a decision concerning the allocation of scarce resources (inter- dependence of system parts). The process of their decision making is inevitably complex, and the result equally uncertain, which is to say, unpredict- able. While traditional Newtonian science may identify main effects and principal features of a system, complexity theorists would argue that

153Complexity and Communication

total control of elements within that system is impossible because combined effects that are in simultaneous interplay act—and interact—in unpredictable ways, making systems dynamical. When structural and dynamical complexity are applied to human systems, we are reminded anew that people are only occasionally logical and ratio- nal. Because they possess imperfect information, they tend to act on the basis of ideology, chance, and perceived individual payoff.

Under conditions of dynamical complexity, the environment shifts around and behind a person such that it is difficult to know what will happen next. For example, in 1980 no one imagined the existence of the Internet and its wide use that fol- lowed just 25 years later. At the same time, a pic- ture telephone had existed since the 1960s, but its cost was so high and the quality of the technology so low that no one used it. Who would have pre- dicted 15 years ago that people would be inter- ested in watching a movie on a 5-cm 5-cm (2-in. 2-in.) screen held in their hand, as in a smart-

phone? So, looking at technology alone and how consumers’ tastes change in relation to their ability to pay for it exemplifies this kind of complexity.

Nonlinearity includes the idea that the mere behavior of some people taking action has a way of changing the rules for everyone. Since there is no necessarily “right” direction or answer, people, needing a way to gain some modicum of control under conditions of complexity, tend to play off each other and act outward—that is, they use each other’s actions as a guide for what to do next. To return to our example of the smartphone, tech- nologists must now be asking themselves, “What does a 5-cm 5-cm screen mean for the future of our technology? How might such a small screen affect word processing in the future? How might we solve the problem of minute fonts and key- boards?” By the time this little entry is read, even these questions will in all likelihood seem comi- cally dated. This ongoing evolution, in which the system state or condition at any time depends on the preceding condition, defines the system as dynamic and therefore transformative over time.

What happens in the dynamic enactment of structural complexity? Progress is uneven; the vary- ing rate of diffusion of innovations is evidence that players with unequal knowledge innovate at differ- ent rates of speed. But there is also a greater chance

for synergy, both positive and negative. There are all kinds of synergies—religious, pharmacological, ideological, practical, and mathematical.

The synergy relating to communication in orga- nizations is of special interest to us here. One such kind of synergy is group synergy. It includes the effect of combining unique individual talents into a team that produces a special outcome, such as a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, a Lewis and Clark expedition, or a Woodward and Bernstein political investigation. But synergy can also be the way in which complexity increases risks negatively. Just as it is possible to create new technologies that, because of their simplicity, bypass more com- plicated ones and create transformational results— such as the microchip’s replacing the transistor—the opposite can also be true: Negative synergy can generate disastrous results. The combination, in 2001, of the technologies of passenger jets, sky- scrapers, and a rudimentary knowledge of piloting an airplane is a poignant example.

Another effect of dynamical complexity is a balancing act between order and disorder within a system. This condition is called far from equilib- rium (FFE). It has both negative and positive feed- back loops and thus is simultaneously capable of stability and instability. Behavior under conditions of FFE is paradoxical because the system moves autonomously back and forth between stability and instability. Take, for example, jazz music. It has stability that is created by the bass and percus- sion instruments, which establish the basic rhythm of the music. But once this rhythm is in place, variation and improvisation are possible from other instruments because they play off the con- tinuous rhythm. The combination of rhythm and improvisation makes jazz what it is—a complex system that is deliciously FFE.

What does a structural and dynamical interpreta- tion of complexity have to do with communication? This is where the work on integrative complexity in communication and social psychology is applicable. Integrative complexity refers to a style of thinking— more particularly, a style of problem solving—that involves recognizing and integrating multiple perspectives and possibilities and their interrelated contingencies. The concept has two features: differ- entiation, which is the number of features of a prob- lem situation recognized and taken into account in decision making, and integration, which is the

154 Complexity and Communication

number of complex connections that are drawn from among the characteristics that have been dif- ferentiated. Integrative complexity focuses on the extent to which individuals make differentiations in their thinking and integrate those differentiations into workable solutions.

For example, let’s say we’re a start-up high-tech company aspiring to create technologies that build on the smartphone. All the different pieces of rel- evant information about that phone—as its price decreases by x percent, its adoption increases by y percent—exemplify differentiation. Meanwhile, the number of connections we manage to make among these pieces of information—for example, the total market for smartphones will be saturated in z years—exemplifies integration.

Let’s say, further, that our company aspires to create a superior work environment that will help promote our creation of these technologies. Here, our goal is an environment that is markedly practi- cal, is hospitable to lots of different meanings, and generously takes into account others’ points of view. What we do not want is a simplistic environ- ment that prefers black-and-white interpretations of information and that assumes that authoritative figures are more apt to be correct than subordi- nates who actually operate close to what is going on. Here, then, is the difference between integra- tive complexity and its opposite, low-integrative complexity.

Integratively complex thinking is affected by the speed and rate of interpretation. Low-complexity thinkers are more likely to (a) be satisfied operat- ing with little information, (b) make snap deci- sions, and (c) dismiss others into an out-group if the information they provide is disagreeable. Under conditions of complexity, and when creativity is the goal, outsider information increases the quality of decision making because divergent thinkers push against common assumptions.

Integratively complex communication is FFE because it is directed toward the dual goals of pro- cessing complex information and making links among the data that provide a workable solution. Integrative complexity involves establishing rules for operating that allow the system to perform without focusing on rules for rules’ sake; in addi- tion, those operating under integrative complexity are willing to change rules when they no longer serve the system.

Within integrative complexity, simple social reali- ties are not given as fact but rather constructed and interpreted in complex ways. Any observed phenom- enon is the resolution of a large number of mutual, simultaneous, entangled interactions, each of which is constantly shaping and being shaped by all others; there is no simple linear relationship between cause and effect, or even between success and failure. Analytical approaches have generally failed to acknowledge this dynamic nature of organization, analogous to a living process, in which some interde- pendent parts may experience more comparative degrees of success or failure than others at any given moment. Things tend not to come out even.

Integratively complex systems have checks and balances, multilevel assessments of performance, testing of assumptions with measurement, and public meetings at scheduled intervals to advance arguments so that understanding can mature over time. These practices help show that “the right way to go” is constantly up in the air and dependent on the conversations of participants who are knowl- edgeable about the problem at hand. Action is valuable under conditions of complexity. It’s impor- tant to understand the irony of bureaucratic control—that the very attempt to make systems that are perfectly rule-following often results in conse- quences opposite of what was originally intended.

Integratively complex systems focus on informa- tion processing and decision making—especially on how fixed or flexible the interpretation of informa- tion is and how, once interpreted, information leads to decision-making structures. An integratively com- plex system is both stable enough to remain safe from destruction and free enough to experiment and to invent systems that create opportunity.

Larry Browning

See also Cybernetics; Group Communication Theories; Organizational Communication Theories; System Theory

Further Readings

Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10, 216–223.

Contractor, N. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Theoretical frameworks for the study of structuring processes in group decision support systems: Adaptive structuration

155Compliance Gaining Strategies

theory and self-organizing systems theory. Human Communication Research, 19, 528–563.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin.

Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of decision making. In J. M. Levine & R. L. Moreland (Eds.), Small groups: Key readings (pp. 133–156). New York: Psychology Press.

Harvey, O. J. (1966). Experience, structure & adaptability. New York: Springer.

Holland, J. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Reading, MA: Perseus.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88–115.

Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist, 5, 164–179.

Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high- risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 68–76, 149.

Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 169–184.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 1999, 50, 361–398.

COMPLIANCE GAINING STRATEGIES

Efforts to gain the compliance of others are ubiquitous. Compliance-gaining communication is a form of persuasion that, in turn, is a form of influence. Influence may therefore be understood as an umbrella term that encompasses both intentional and unintentional communication to alter another’s beliefs, attitudes, intentions, or behavior. Compliance gaining and compliance resisting are typically viewed as a subset of per- suasion that involves intentional efforts to change another’s behavior.

Conceptualizing Compliance Gaining

As its name suggests, compliance gaining empha- sizes a specific outcome: compliance. Its emphasis

is not on attitude change, but rather on behavioral conformity. Research on compliance gaining exam- ines various verbal and nonverbal strategies to increase the likelihood of securing another’s adher- ence. Promise of reward and threat of punishment are two of many such strategies. The trajectory of research in this area has emphasized the interper- sonal arena, or one-on-one compliance gaining, although other contexts have been studied as well.

Taxonomies and Typologies

Compliance-gaining research dates back to at least 1960, when John French and Bertram Raven iden- tified five bases of power used in social interaction. Reward power involves the ability to confer bene- fits on others. Coercive power focuses on the abil- ity to inflict punishments or impose penalties on others. Expert power centers on expertise or com- petence. We tend to comply with people who “know their stuff.” Legitimate power is based on one’s official rank or formal standing. Finally, ref- erent power has to do with being admired or respected. A person is more likely to comply with a request from someone she or he reveres.

In the mid-1960s, Gerald Marwell and David Schmidt were among the first to demarcate com- pliance gaining as a field of study. They identified 16 strategies that they labeled as a deductive tax- onomy, meaning that all compliance-gaining efforts could be grouped into one of the 16 categories. In the early 1980s, Richard Wiseman and William Schenck-Hamlin questioned such an a priori scheme, noting that some strategies, such as deceit or hinting, were ignored. Wiseman and Schenck- Hamlin formulated their own inductive taxonomy, which yielded a total of 14 strategies. Frank Boster, James Stiff, and Rodney Reynolds reconciled the disparity in these two schemes by noting that they were complementary and that combining them produced 24 distinct strategies.

Soon after, a proliferation of taxonomies ensued. In the mid-1990s this taxonomic confusion was remedied somewhat by Kathy Kellermann and Tim Cole. They compared 74 different taxonomies and noted that many strategies were overlapping and/or not conceptually distinct. Similar strategies often carried dissimilar labels (e.g., threat and warning), and dissimilar strategies often shared confusingly similar labels (e.g., favor and altruism). After

156 Compliance Gaining Strategies

integrating all the strategies, they concluded that 64 separate, distinct strategies had been identified in the literature.

In addition to the patchwork quilt of strategies, compliance-gaining research was problematic on other grounds. First, much of the research was atheoretical in nature. Researchers identified what strategies participants claimed they would use, but not why participants chose those particular strate- gies. Second, many studies were based on hypo- thetical checklists. Respondents were presented with hypothetical scenarios, offered a list of poten- tial strategies, and instructed to rate the strategies according to their likelihood of using them. Such an approach risks social desirability bias. On paper, respondents might prefer more positive strategies. In practice, however, they might employ more nega- tive strategies. A third limitation is that many studies measured only strategy preferences, not behavioral compliance. More recent investigations, thankfully, have focused on actual compliance in real-world settings.

Cialdini’s Principles

Robert Cialdini, a leading figure in compliance- gaining research, integrated studies from a variety of disciplines into five basic principles of compli- ance gaining. The first principle, reciprocity, is based on doing another person a favor (called pre- giving) and then asking for a different, larger favor in return. Another principle, commitment and con- sistency, centers on a person’s desire to maintain psychological consistency among her or his beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. The third principle, social proof, involves comparing oneself to others and modeling others’ behavior. The fourth principle, authority, relies on source factors such as credibil- ity. The fifth principle, liking, is based on warm, ingratiatory behaviors and attractiveness. The sixth and final principle, scarcity, has to do with increasing the perceived value of something by making it appear to be in short supply.

Politeness Theory and Influence Attempts

Influence attempts require facework and identity management. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s politeness theory highlights the inter- dependent nature of requesters’ and requestees’ face needs. A requester usually adapts his or her

message to satisfy the requestee’s face needs. Some strategies may threaten another’s positive face—by conveying disapproval, for instance—or another’s negative face, by constraining the other’s freedom or autonomy. When framing requests, then, requesters tend to avoid face-threatening acts and shape their language choices accordingly. The same applies to compliance resisting. When declin- ing a request, the requestee typically chooses lan- guage strategies that spare her or him guilt and the other person embarrassment. One of the chal- lenges in making or declining requests is the need to strike a balance between being clear or straight- forward and honoring face needs.

Dillard’s Goals–Plans–Action Model of Interpersonal Influence

In an effort to understand the bases for strategy development and selection, James Dillard devel- oped the goals–plans–action (GPA) model of inter- personal influence. The model focuses on the cognitive processes involved in an influence attempt, starting with the source’s goals. Goals are future states of affairs that a person wishes to bring about. Compliance gaining often entails multiple goals, which Dillard delineates as primary and secondary goals. Primary goals are the cata- lysts for compliance gaining, while secondary goals shape the approach used. When one person asks another out on a date, the requester’s primary goal is for the other person to accept the invitation. A secondary goal might be to save face if the invi- tation is declined. Thus, the requester might test the waters by asking, “Are you doing anything this Saturday night?” Primary and secondary goals may be complementary or contradictory.

Seven types of primary goals have been identi- fied by Dillard. These include gain assistance (“Would you help me move?”); give advice (“I’d have that looked at if I were you.”); share activity (“Let’s do lunch.”); change orientation, for exam- ple, alter another’s perspective (“You should become a vegan: You’ll look and feel better.”); change relationship (“I think we should take a break and just be . . . friends.”); obtain permission (“Is it OK if I leave early tomorrow?”); and enforce rights and obligations (“You promised we would have a destination wedding!”). Primary goals are the impetus for constructing compliance-gaining

157Compliance Gaining Strategies

messages. Dillard does not claim these are the only primary goals. He also acknowledges that goals exist at varying levels of abstraction.

In addition to primary goals, five types of secondary goals have been identified. Identity goals involve personal, ethical standards of beha- vior. Conversation management goals focus on identity management and face-saving behavior. Relational-resource goals focus on relationship maintenance strategies. Personal-resource goals are aimed at improving one’s assets. Finally, affect management goals emphasize the impor- tance of managing moods and emotions during influence attempts.

Primary and secondary goals vary in their degree of compatibility. According to Dillard, the interplay between them reflects their goal-structure complex- ity. Based on the relationships among all the goals involved, a person develops plans, which are possi- ble means of achieving goals. Plans vary in their level of abstraction, complexity, and completeness. Thus, a plan may be half baked or carefully con- ceived. Plans are developed based on such consider- ations as ease of execution, likelihood of success, and anticipated resistance.

To implement plans, a compliance gainer must develop strategies and tactics. Strategies are more abstract, while tactics are more specific or con- crete. Thus a parent who used a strategy of posi- tive reward to motivate his or her son to try harder in school might employ the tactic “If you get all A’s this semester, I’ll take you to Disneyland.” While independent studies have found support for the GPA model, more empirical testing of the model is needed. At present, the GPA model serves as a useful explanatory framework of how indi- viduals go about designing compliance-gaining messages.

Verbal Strategies

Sequential Requests

Compliance gainers often rely on a series of requests, with an earlier request laying the ground- work for a later request. A variety of sequential strategies have been identified in the literature, including the low-ball technique, the that’s-not-all technique, and the bait-and-switch tactic. For brevity’s sake, this section examines the two that

have garnered the most research attention: foot-in- the-door (FITD) and door-in-the-face (DITF).

When using the FITD technique, a source makes a small initial request to soften up the recipient, or target, of the request. Next, a larger, follow-up request is made. Compliance with the initial request significantly increases the likelihood of compliance with the second request, compared with no initial request at all. One explanation for the effectiveness of the FITD is based on Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory. Doing a small good deed activates a person’s self-awareness that she or he is a helpful person. Complying with the second, larger request reinforces that self-perception. The FITD strategy has proven to be quite robust, espe- cially when the request is prosocial in nature.

A companion strategy is the DITF technique. This strategy involves making an initial large request, on the assumption that it will be rejected, then following up with a second, more reasonable request. A variety of explanations have been offered for the effectiveness of the DITF. Two of the most common are reciprocal concessions and social responsibility. For strangers, it appears that targets perceive they are engaged in a negotiation, and compliance with the second request is viewed as a compromise. For friends, a sense of social responsibility or helping behavior seems to be at work. Other explanations, such as the perceptual- contrast phenomenon, also have been offered: Compared with the first request, the second request seems much more reasonable. Yet another explana- tion is guilt based; having said no once, the target feels guilty about saying no again. Whatever the underly- ing mechanism, the DITF has proven to be an effec- tive compliance gaining strategy.

Other Verbal Strategies

Other verbal strategies include the disrupt-then- reframe (DTR) strategy, the even-a-penny-helps strategy, and the even-a-few-minutes-helps strat- egy. The objective of the DTR strategy is to reduce resistance by using a non sequitur. For example, a requester might ask, “Would you like to buy some raffle tickets? They are $3. That’s 300 pennies. What a bargain.” The verbal anomaly “300 pen- nies” tends to interrupt the target’s thought pro- cess, thereby reducing resistance. Reframing, for example, “What a bargain,” redirects attention to the positive features of the request. For the DTR

158 Compliance Gaining Strategies

to be effective, both elements—disruption and reframing—are essential.

Making a request and adding “even a penny helps” also has been shown to increase compli- ance. Yet inserting the phrase “even a few minutes would help” is ineffective. Another study revealed that adding the word “please” to a request for a charitable donation actually backfired, reducing the rate of compliance. Thus, not every verbal appeal is effective.

A variety of other verbal strategies rely on impression management to induce compliance. Two such strategies are ingratiation and self-promotion. Ingratiatory behaviors include compliments (“I love that tie!”) and opinion conformity (“You are so right!”). Self-promotion seeks to enhance another’s impression of the source (“I can meet you as soon as I’m done helping at the homeless shelter.”). Both positive (“You are so helpful!”) and negative social labeling (“You should be ashamed!”) also have been shown to increase compliance.

Nonverbal Strategies

Immediacy

A number of nonverbal strategies for gaining compliance have been documented in the litera- ture. Many of these are based on immediacy behaviors, such as eye contact, smiling, and touch. Peter Andersen’s direct effects model of immediacy posits that warm, involving behaviors, in and of themselves, generate more favorable impressions of the requester. Greater liking for the requester, in turn, leads to greater compliance.

Touch and Compliance

A number of investigations have demonstrated that a brief, light touch on the shoulder increases compliance. Touch tends to elicit a more favorable impression of the requester, which translates into greater compliance. Touch has been shown to increase tips left by diners, facilitate helping behav- ior by passersby, improve participation rates in a survey, and increase petition signing. In one study, strangers were asked to watch a large, unruly dog while its owner ran an errand. Strangers who were touched were more likely to comply, compared with strangers who were not touched. These results appear to be generalizable to other settings. A

meta-analysis by Chris Segrin revealed that touch was always as effective and often more effective than no touch. Interestingly, touch appears to be effective even if the target is unaware of it.

Eye Contact

Gaze is another immediacy behavior that has been shown to facilitate compliance. For example, one study found that direct eye contact increased targets’ willingness to participate in a survey. Moreover, a verbal request is not necessarily required for eye contact to work. One study found that a person with an arm injury was more likely to receive assistance if she made eye contact with a bystander, as opposed to avoiding eye contact.

One exception to the general finding that eye contact facilitates compliance involves illegitimate requests. Chris Kleinke found that eye contact increased compliance with a legitimate request but decreased compliance with an illegitimate request. Avoiding eye contact while making an illegitimate request may be perceived as a sign of deference or humility. With few exceptions, however, gaze seems to be an effective compliance-gaining strategy.

Smiling

People who smile are perceived as kinder, hap- pier, warmer, more sociable, and more honest than unsmiling people. Not only does smiling tend to engender more favorable impressions of a person, it also increases the likelihood that others will lend assistance. One study found that students who were caught cheating received more lenient punish- ment when they smiled.

Putting a smile on another’s face also appears to facilitate compliance gaining. In one study, a food server who provided a joke for diners received more tips than food servers who did not offer a joke. Smiling, however, is not a foolproof strategy. Smiles can be highly ambiguous. What one person perceives as a genuine smile, another may perceive as disingenuous. The meaning of a smile is thus interpreted against a backdrop of contextual clues, including gender, culture, and the nature of the relationship.

Mirroring and Mimicry

Mirroring or mimicry of another’s nonverbal behavior also has been shown to facilitate

159Compliance Gaining Strategies

compliance. Mirroring another’s nonverbal cues may be construed as a sign of liking or rapport. Mimicry also can facilitate helping behavior. As with many nonverbal cues, mirroring appears to operate at a low level of awareness. The person whose nonverbal behavior is being imitated is typically unaware of the strategy.

Appearance and Apparel

Appearance and apparel are not so much imme- diacy cues as credibility and status factors. An abundance of research suggests that appearance cues, such as attractiveness and attire, play a role in compliance gaining. Physically attractive people benefit from a variety of positive attributions oth- ers make about them. These attributions carry over into behavioral compliance. For example, attrac- tive persons who solicited charity donations received a larger number of donations than did unattractive persons. And strangers were more likely to assist an attractive than an unattractive young woman, and more likely still to help a “tra- ditionally” attractive woman as opposed to an attractive “feminist.”

The fairly consistent finding is that well-dressed people are more likely to gain others’ compliance than poorly dressed people are. In one study, for example, a well-dressed or casually dressed “shop- lifter” pocketed a CD in a retail store in plain view of another customer. Customers were less likely to report the well-dressed thief than the casually dressed thief.

People wearing uniforms are more likely to secure compliance than nonuniformed persons are. In one investigation, a passerby was more likely to help a stranger who needed change for a parking meter when the stranger was dressed as a firefighter rather than as a businessperson or a homeless person.

Contexts for Compliance Gaining

Although early studies on compliance gaining relied heavily on self-reports involving hypothetical situations, recent research centers on compliance in real-world settings. A wide variety of communica- tion contexts have been examined thus far, includ- ing bystanders and helping behavior, classroom compliance, computer-mediated influence, food servers and tipping behavior, intimate influence,

physician–patient encounters, police interrogation and custodial interviews, retail sales, sexual com- pliance and resistance, and upward–downward influence in organizational settings. Examining specific strategies in specific contexts has proved much more valuable than the earlier efforts to develop universal, “one size fits all” typologies.

Ethics of Compliance Gaining

As is the case with all persuasion, compliance gaining is fraught with ethical concerns. While some view the study of compliance gaining as ethically suspect, equating it with manipulation, others maintain that compliance gaining is a nec- essary, indispensible feature of human interaction. Robert Gass and John Seiter maintain that partic- ular strategies, such as fear appeals, deception, and ingratiation, are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. Rather, they suggest, the “motives color the means,” meaning that the moral quality of an influence attempt depends more on the end(s) sought than the means used. By way of illustration, if one used deception to swindle a person out of his or her life savings, the outcome would be unethical. If one used deception to con- ceal a surprise party for a friend, however, decep- tion would be justifiable as a means to an end.

Conclusion

Compliance gaining piqued the interest of scholars in the 1960s and has continued ever since. Much of the current research is being conducted in specific communication contexts. While some compliance-gaining contexts may seem mundane, such as studying ways to increase tips, other compliance-gaining research, such as resisting unwanted sexual advances or encouraging patients to follow their doctor’s advice, holds important social consequences. Further research in this area offers the prospect not only of how to facilitate compliance, but of how to resist influence attempts as well.

Robert H. Gass

See also Immediacy; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Politeness Theory

160 Complicity Theory

Further Readings

Cialdini, R. (2004). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. T. (2007). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Yes! 50 scientifically proven ways to be persuasive. New York: Free Press.

Guéguen, N., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2002). An evaluation of touch on a large request: A field setting. Psychological Reports, 90, 267–269.

Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4(1), 3–60.

Kleinke, C. (1980). Interaction between gaze and legitimacy of request on compliance in a field setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 3–12.

Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on outcomes of compliance-gaining attempts. Communication Studies, 44, 169–187.

van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71–74.

Vrugt, A. (2007). Effects of a smile: Reciprocation and compliance with a request. Psychological Reports, 101, 1196–1202.

COMPLICITY THEORY

Complicity theory draws on critical race theory and cultural studies to explore how discourse in opposition to certain groups contributes to the negative social construction of difference as well as identity. Grounded in the theory of the opposite party attributed to the ancient Greek Sophist Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, complic- ity theory begins with the idea that individuals or groups that are at odds fail to see how their positions are implicated in each other’s and applies this observation to contemporary con- flicts that center on issues of race, gender, class, and classification.

Complicity theory takes the notion that lan- guage creates reality to its logical extreme by sug- gesting that a language of argument and persuasion that rests on rigid definitions of self and other actu- ally cultivates an understanding of difference as fundamentally negative. This account questions the underlying assumption of much Western commu- nication theory that argument and persuasion are “natural” forms of human symbolic interaction.

Theories of complicity are not unique to com- munication studies. In literary theory, for example, complicity critiques account for the ways that those subjected to oppressive symbolic practices reinforce the institutional and ideological systems that oppress them. Within literary, cultural, and rhetorical studies, theories of complicity have offered powerful and provocative perspectives to view the problems and possibilities of oppositional resistance and emancipatory action.

Within literary and cultural studies, complicity critiques have focused on the ways in which social actors participate socially and symbolically in the creation and maintenance of oppressive symbolic and material practices of late capitalism. Within communication studies, complicity theory has focused on the recognition of the subtle and some- times insidious ways that individuals are implicated in systems of domination by certain oppositional discursive strategies employed to critique those sys- tems. This conception of complicity as a theory of negative difference is grounded in research on rheto- ric and race that explores the symbolic and episte- mological aspects of oppositional discourse and criticism.

The most sustained considerations of complic- ity theory have emerged in studies of African American culture, consciousness, and identity. The earliest discussions of complicity as a theory of negative difference emerged in research on the rhetoric of racism that challenged accepted notions of domination and subordination and examined the underlying assumptions of traditional Western communication theories and practices, including notions of Black authenticity and unity. The the- ory has been adopted by African American com- munication scholars to examine the complexities of Black nationalism and Black masculinity, as well as notions of racial difference and identity. Complicity theory has also been utilized by schol- ars writing on reconciliation and reparations to

161Computer-Mediated Communication

explore the ways in which public and intellectual discourse has actually been reinforced and sus- tained by oppositional communication.

Complicity theory has also influenced scholarship in studies of Whiteness, gay and lesbian identity, race and gender in higher education, and the power of media to cultivate interracial understanding. In each of these areas, complicity theory offers a useful lens through which the complex character of discur- sive resistance and reification can be analyzed and explicated. Whiteness studies have drawn on com- plicity theory to consider how conceptions of racial identity taken to be essentially true contribute to symbolic and social antagonisms and also reinforce White privilege and ideological innocence. Gay and lesbian studies have explored the complex contra- dictions that emerge at the intersection of Christianity and sexuality and how rigid notions of difference and identity are challenged in this context. Complicity theory has been applied to studies of how educa- tional institutions function with fixed notions of race and gender identity, even as these institutions ostensibly call such notions into question, and has also been used to investigate the potential of film to reshape and transform racial attitudes.

These studies also explore a central concept of complicity theory: the notion of coherence. Coherence focuses on the ways in which seemingly antithetical positions are implicated in each other. While complicity and coherence can be viewed as contrasting notions, they can also be understood to exist in a dialogic, or complementary, relation- ship. This understanding of complicity theory assumes that it is not possible to move beyond complicity, but only to recognize that we are always complicit in systems of domination. To believe that we can escape our complicity, then, only reinforces the very systems we hope to trans- form or overcome.

The disease of alcoholism offers a useful anal- ogy: It is only by recognizing and accepting that one is an alcoholic that one can address the disease. When applied to social phenomena such as racism and sexism, complicity theory posits that we can begin to address these conditions only by acknowl- edging that they always influence our language and behavior, even when we believe that they do not. The notion that one can be “color blind” or “gen- der blind” is thus a form of self-deception. We are, by virtue of the fact that we live in societies shaped

by racism and sexism, complicit in those systems: Only when we can accept our complicity can we begin to understand and address its implications for language, life, and social interaction.

Mark Lawrence McPhail

See also Afrocentricity; Critical Race Theory; Intercultural Communication Theories; Interracial Communication; Social Construction of Reality

Further Readings

Chavez, K. (2004). Beyond complicity: Coherence, queer theory, and the rhetoric of the “gay” Christian movement. Text and Performance Quarterly, 24, 255–275.

Hatch, J. (2003). Reconciliation: Building a bridge from complicity to coherence in the rhetoric of race relations. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 6, 737–764.

McPhail, M. (1991). Complicity: The theory of negative difference. Howard Journal of Communications, 3, 1–13.

McPhail, M. (1998). From complicity to coherence: Rereading the rhetoric of Afrocentricity. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 114–140.

Orbe, M., & Kinefuchi, E. (2008). Crash under investigation: Engaging complications of complicity, coherence, and implicature through critical analysis. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25, 135–156.

Patton, T. (2004). In the guise of civility: The complicitous maintenance of inferential forms of sexism and racism in higher education. Women’s Studies in Communication, 27, 60–87.

Pfister, J. (2000). Complicity critiques. American Literary History, 12, 610–623.

COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF INFORMATION SEEKING

See Uncertainty Management Theories

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

In the broadest sense, computer-mediated communi- cation (CMC) can be any form of communication

162 Computer-Mediated Communication

that is mediated by digital technology. Thus, a tele- phone conversation can be said to be computer mediated if each speech act is converted into digital code, transmitted, and then decoded for the listener.

In relation to the speech acts themselves, such a conversation is no different from that mediated by an analogue or human-operated telephone exchange. However, when the conversation is con- verted into a form that is managed by computing systems, the spatial, temporal, and social contexts of telephony can be radically transformed. Speech acts can be digitally recorded and digitally recognized in ways that are storable and exchangeable with other digital information. Calls can be screened, forwarded, and blocked, and conversations can be timed in ways that are linked to billing; all these properties impact how people use the telephone, whether they use it at all, and how long they use it.

While CMC can take in the study of telephony and interactivity in any computer-mediated form, the most common meaning of it is related to the direct use of personal computers for communica- tion, to the point that today, CMC is often used interchangeably with online Internet communica- tion. Thus e-mail, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and simulated worlds are all forms of CMC. But the distinguishing feature here is that what is being mediated is communication—not information or entertainment. Browsing the World Wide Web and downloading information—the primary activity of Web 1.0 (the original use of the Internet)—are not examples of CMC. Rather, communication between individuals, whether one-to-one or many-to-many, sharing text, sounds, and images in Web 2.0, and interacting in next-generation environments are examples. However, the most common forms of CMC are e-mail, with its very low bandwidth, or the broader-banded online social networking out- lets, in which users can post images or music. But in each case, text predominates.

A further division here is between synchro- nous and asynchronous CMC. Many chat sites, such as the early Internet Relay Chat and “I seek you,” Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) and MUDs object oriented (MOOs), and today’s Second Life are in real time. The bulk of CMC, how- ever, is asynchronous, with e-mail and online social networking offering the convenience of communication that can be stored in a threaded conversation.

The fact that there are several varieties of CMC, according to temporal and bandwidth qualities, has led some researchers to problematize the status and nature of interactivity in CMC.

Interactivity

Founder of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Sheizaf Rafaeli is a key theorist who can assist in understanding interaction within CMC. In an important 1988 article, Rafaeli dis- tinguishes between connectivity, reactivity, and interactivity. Networks must have a human inter- face, but they must also have an architecture that makes interactivity possible. Such interactive net- works, once established, take on a history of their own, and through such a history, relationships are formed. Two-way communication does not, in itself, guarantee interactivity. Rather, an exchange or action–reaction must develop into a relationship in which one utterance becomes a context for another. Without this form of con- nectivity, relationships become either circular or solipsistic.

Rafaeli also wants to abandon the dyadic model that is applied to most CMC. Online interactivity is distributed across a network and cannot be reduced to the sum of a point-to-point exchange. Every message takes into account preceding messages, as well as the ways in which previous messages react to one another. This view of inter- activity suggests that the actual use of CMC is seldom interactive, particularly in cases of ano- nymity in CMC discussion groups. For this reason, a fundamental distinction needs to be made between CMC users and groups that have other outside relationships and those that do not.

Computer-Mediated Communication Research Directions

This distinction corresponds to two dominant directions in CMC research—the cues-filtered-out approach, which focuses research on users, and avatar research. When CMC is experienced as an extension of interpersonal or institutional relation- ships online, interlocutors are generally referred to as users. When interlocutors have no off-line rela- tionship and identities exist only online, they are referred to as avatars.

163Computer-Mediated Communication

Cues-Filtered-Out Approach

Research into users is distinctively concerned with the way computer-extended communication mediates face-to-face forms of communication. The face-to-face becomes an analogue and bench- mark for measuring the “success” of CMC, which is viewed as substituting for the face-to-face. It is known as a cues-filtered-out approach because it examines which cues of nonverbal communication are missing in the communication event and how they are put “back in.” Particularly important to this perspective, then, is the study of emoticons, the symbols used in e-mail to denote facial expres- sions, and netiquette, the ways that cyberspace demands the forms of polite protocol expected in embodied life.

Nancy Baym argues that in computer-mediated interaction, people are not able to see, hear, or feel one another, which eliminates their ability to use context cues. This leaves them in a kind of social vacuum that is different from face-to-face talk. Because of this, CMC participants typically find ways of “putting back in” the cues that are lost from external contexts. Therefore, much effort goes into bringing these external contexts into the content of interaction.

Baym also identifies five different sources of impact on CMC: (1) external contexts, in which the use of CMC is set (language, city); (2) the tem- poral structure of the group (synchronistic or asyn- chronistic); (3) the infrastructure of the computer system (speed, number of computers, capacity for anonymity, user-friendliness); (4) the purposes for which the CMC is used (interest oriented, uses and gratifications); and (5) the characteristics of the group and its members (group size, educational level of participants).

Avatar Research

The second direction of CMC research—avatar research—which was very popular in the late 1990s, champions the exclusion of external con- texts of CMC. This research argues that online identities, or avatars, enjoy a neutral space of interaction. Because there are no cues that can spontaneously signify an interlocutor’s appear- ance, gender, class, and ethnicity, avatars are seen to communicate on an equal footing, without any of the social discrimination that accompanies the

above categories. An avatar can exist in a number of CMC environments. The avatar’s identity may be limited to textual representation, or in the case of many synchronous forms of simulated CMC— such as MUDs, MOOs, and Second Life—an ava- tar can take on a visual form and adopt voices and behavior that are constructed online. The avatar does not have an identity or a history other than what is formed online.

In the 1990s, the question of online identity represented by the avatar was a major source of fascination for CMC scholars. Social–psychological and psychoanalytic frameworks have been used to understand virtual identity as a unique form of self-identity without the social inhibitions that exist in real life. The notion of cyberpsychology emerged, and new journals, such as Cyber - Psychology & Behavior, were established. Much of the work in this approach sought to analyze the way CMC relationships might deviate from real- life relationships with respect to honesty, morality, and empathy. Other writers, such as Sherry Turkle, saw CMC as emancipatory because it allowed people to explore their identity in a socially and physically safe simulated reality.

The euphoria that characterized the social psy- chology of CMC that was popular in the 1990s came under attack from a number of writers who argued that it ignored empirical research showing that CMC is one medium among many by which the same people interact. The concept of the avatar makes sense only if too sharp a distinction is drawn between the virtual life and real life. However, a series of everyday-life types of empiri- cal studies in the late 1990s showed this approach to be unhelpful in explaining why some people spent a great deal of time online while for others, CMC represented a minor part of their communi- cation practices. Moreover, at its height, avatar research could hardly lay claim to providing a rep- resentation of some kind of neutral, asocial human nature when it is considered that CMC in the mid-1990s was very much dominated by North American upper-middle-class professionals who shared similar interests.

In recent years, the interest in the avatar has waned and is of little interest to the net generation of young people who are born as “digital natives” and have not faced the novelty of having to migrate to digital culture. As Susan Herring has noted, the

164 Conflict Communication Theories

net generation does not relate well to the utopian speculations or the debates about online democ- racy, identity, and virtuality of earlier decades.

David Holmes

See also Digital Cultures; Media Equation Theory; Network Society; New Media Theory; Presence Theory

Further Readings

Baym, N. (1998). The emergence of on-line community. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 138–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (2002). The Internet and everyday life: An introduction. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet and everyday life (pp. 3–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Herring, S. (2004). Slouching towards the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media and Society, 6, 26–36.

Nancy, J.-L. (1991). The Inoperative Community (ed. P. Connor; trans. Peter Connor, Lisa Garbus, Michael Hilland, and Simona Sawhney). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Sage annual review of communication research: Advancing communication science, Vol. 16 (pp. 10–134). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana .edu/v012/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html

Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: Identity and social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 434–464.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’t ride alone. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 167–194). London: Routledge.

Whitty, M. (2002). Liar, liar! An examination of how open, supportive and honest people are in chat rooms. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 343–352.

Whitty, M., & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the development of online relationships. CyberPsychology and Behaviour, 4, 623–630.

CONFLICT COMMUNICATION THEORIES

In the early 1970s, communication scholars entered the field of conflict theory, dissatisfied by ways pre- vious scholars had treated interactants as solely rational and strategic, communication as binary (communicate or not communicate), and conflict as necessarily destructive. Two implicit assumptions made it impossible to reveal the process or function of communication in conflict: that conflict results from insufficient or ineffective communication and that cooperation is inherently superior. Communication theorists, rather, espoused a view of conflict as an inevitable and necessary social pro- cess that when managed well contributes to cre- ativity, cohesiveness, relational growth, and produc tivity. Most communication theorists prefer the term conflict management to conflict resolution because the former suggests an ongoing communi- cation process focusing attention on interaction, whereas the latter suggests episodes that must be dealt with as they occur, focusing attention on the discrete content of each episode. The title of a widely cited book, Working Through Conflict, cap- tures the essence of communication theorists’ pre- sumptions about conflict communication. Not only do individuals communicate to “work through” conflicts; they also accomplish work “through con- flict.” This entry reviews conceptual issues in the development of communication conflict theory, overviews early models that form the foundation of contemporary communication conflict theory, and summarizes four continuing traditions of communi- cation conflict theory. A great deal of the informa- tion herein is drawn from the 2006 Handbook of Conflict Communication.

Uniting Conflict and Communication

Communication and conflict are interdependent, simultaneously defining each other. In 1973, Leonard Hawes and David Smith discussed the conceptualization of conflict along three dimen- sions: goal, strategy, and time. They delineated prospective and retrospective approaches to goals. The common approach at the time was prospective, assuming individuals have clear, direct goals; conflict is defined by contradictory goals. The

165Conflict Communication Theories

retrospective approach assumes that goals are meaningful only after behaviors are enacted; com- munication defines the nature of a conflict rather than goals. The second dimension, strategy, refers to resolution versus management of conflict, men- tioned previously. The difference lies in the assump- tion of conflict as destructive or constructive. The third dimension, time, refers to the assumption of whether conflict is episodic or continuous—a tem- porary disruption to be eliminated or a normal, vital, and integrating aspect of interaction to be managed. Different combinations of assumptions on these three dimensions lead to different concep- tualizations of conflict. Prior to the entry of com- munication scholars, theoretical treatments presumed prospective goals, resolution strategies, and an episodic time frame. This approach was very limited. Communication scholars were called on to take the opposite view (retrospective goals, con- structive outcome, and continuous time frame).

In 1978, another communication scholar, Brent Ruben, developed a system-theoretic view that embodies this opposite approach. He argued for a pragmatic or transactional view of communica- tion, presumed by a retrospective view. A prospec- tive view of goals implicitly assumes a mechanistic sender message receiver = effect view of com- munication. Ruben’s perspective rejects both this linear view and the prospective view of goals. Ruben also distinguished paraconflict (symbolic) from conflict (observable action). As symbolic, conflict is defined as constructive or destructive by how it feels to the individuals. As action, conflict is defined as constructive or destructive by how it functions for the system. Ruben did not allow for an episodic conceptualization because he viewed communication as continual and inevitable. Conflict is defined as the discrepancies between the demands and/or capabilities of the system and the demands and/or capacities of the environment. Conflict is the way a system survives, because adaptation (communication) is constant; conflict and adaptation are inseparable.

Conceptualizing Conflict and Communication

By the 1980s, communication scholars had consen- sus on a definition for conflict that allows for a prospective, constructive, and continuous view of conflict: the interaction of interdependent people

who perceive the opposition of goals, aims, and/ or values and who see the other party as poten- tially interfering with the realization of these goals. Three important features make this defini- tion important to communication theorists: inter- action, incompatibility, and interdependence.

Early Conflict Models

Although they rejected basic presumptions under- lying much of previous theory, communication conflict theorists found much to build on. The most influential of these early models were game theory and social exchange, integrative and stra- tegic bargaining, the dual-concern model, and mediation competency models.

Game Theory and Social Exchange

Rooted in economic modeling, game theory provides a mathematical system for modeling con- flict and predicting conflict behavior. Game theory analyzes rationally conducted conflict between players, each of whom pursues well-defined inter- ests and chooses from among alternative actions. Players construct strategies to maximize gain and minimize loss. The underlying premise is that play- ers are consistently rational; a player will necessar- ily attempt to maximize his or her gains. Game theory failed to capture the social and interactive nature of human intentionality and conflict. The assumption that humans are consistently rational and the inability to account for relational interde- pendencies are major factors in communication theorists’ dissatisfaction. Game theory treated communication as simple information exchange, usually binary (communicate or not). Game theory was unable to account for ambiguities in inten- tionality, changes in the process, or variations in psychological and relational processes.

Although game theory research in communica- tion declined by the 1980s, its economic presump- tions resurfaced in social-exchange models of conflict and negotiation. Social-exchange models presume that disputants hold rational motives to maximize self-interest, which is rooted in symbolic and multiple social resources. Furthermore, the interaction itself can be a social resource. Also unlike game theory, exchange theory allows theo- rists to account for reciprocity.

166 Conflict Communication Theories

Integrative Versus Distributive Bargaining

Integrative negotiation models, introduced in the 1960s, were a key advance in the study of bar- gaining. Previously, negotiation theory focused on distributive processes, in which participants view their goals as zero sum (one party’s gain is another’s loss). Integrative bargaining is often summarized by the phrase win–win; it advocates joint problem solving rather than competition. Communication theorists used models of integrative and distribu- tive negotiation to develop theories of collective bargaining, mediation, and interpersonal conflict. They conceptually differentiated between strategies and tactics. Strategies are broad plans of action (e.g., problem solving); tactics are specific messages that enact strategies (e.g., information sharing). According to Linda Putnam, in the late 1980s, communication theorists examined the functions of strategies and tactics and how conflict negotiation evolves over time, studying communication pat- terns and the multiple and various functions served by messages. Communication scholars brought a dynamic view of conflict in their application of integrative and distributive bargaining models.

Dual Concern

The dual-concern model focuses on conflict management styles, predispositions, and behav- ioral tendencies. The two dimensions are concern for self and concern for others. When these dimen- sions are arranged to form quadrants, five basic conflict styles can be identified—one in each cor- ner and one in the center. Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed the original model of manage- ment style, the managerial grid, in 1964. Their five conflict styles are forcing (high concern for results, low concern for people), confronting (high con- cern for results, high concern for people), smooth- ing (low concern for results, high concern for people), withdrawal (low concern for results, low concern for people), and compromising (moderate on both). In the 1970s, Ralph Kilmann and Kenneth Thomas created an instrument to mea- sure the five conflict styles.

Numerous communication theorists developed dual-concern models and instruments. These mod- els differ in conceptualization of the dimensions and styles, and several collapse the styles into three categories that mirror integrative, distributive, and

avoidance behaviors. Early dual-concern models were meant to exemplify typical conflict behaviors that can be predicted for individuals across time and conflict episodes. As this body of theory devel- oped, many scholars enriched it, examining com- munication competence, emotional valence, hidden tactics, changes in strategy over time, contextual influences, and personality. The dual-concern model is criticized for its cultural bias, reliance on self-report, inability to account for ongoing inter- action, and linear approach to the relationship between conflict and communication, yet it con- tinues to be a dominant approach to understand- ing conflict and communication.

Mediation Competency

Unlike negotiation, in mediation a third party intervenes to help manage the conflict. Relying on negotiation research, early communication media- tion theory examined competent mediators’ strate- gies, tactics, phases, and communication patterns. According to Linda Putnam, the earliest of this work focused on persuasion, examining bluffing, coercion, and influence. Tricia Jones pioneered the study of communication and mediation in the 1980s; her taxonomy of mediation communica- tion strategies and tactics allowed her to discover that mediator communication fulfills three basic functions: facilitation, substantive direction, and procedural control. Previously, communication theorists had relied on labor–management media- tion theories that did not account for the richness of interaction and relational communication.

Also at this time, William Donohue developed competence models based on appropriate timing of interventions used by mediators. His most important conclusions were that immediate inter- vention following an attack avoids conflict escala- tion and that mediators who adjust to disputants’ emotional intensity are most successful. Communication theorists’ interest in mediator interventions continues to grow, examining such things as peer and community mediation, percep- tual and structural factors, transformational pro- cesses, empowerment, and meaning creation.

Continuing Traditions

Continuing traditions of communication conflict theory can be organized into four basic contexts:

167Conflict Communication Theories

interpersonal, organizational, community, and intercultural/international. Theory and research are conducted on three basic levels of analysis: cognitive, interactional, or institutional.

The Interpersonal Context

The term interpersonal conflict refers to the con- text of personal relationships, with a large litera- ture focusing on dating and marital relationships. Ted Huston’s social-ecological model views the environment, individuals, and relational processes as interconnected levels of analysis, each of which varies on a time frame from molar (broad histori- cal/social processes) to micro (individual events). John Caughlin and Anita Vangelisti integrate rela- tional conflict communication theory and research into this model by organizing the literature into categories: conflict behaviors and relational out- comes, individual influences on relational conflict, and contextual/environmental influences.

William Donohue’s relational order theory spe- cifically applies to mediation of marital conflict. Disputants’ relational messages about their feel- ings for one another and perceptions of power and status create relational frames constraining nego- tiation. Relational order theory predicts that devel- opment of consistent relational frames allows the ability to find common ground on substantive issues. Four basic relational frames arise from combinations of high and low levels of interdepen- dence and affiliation. The mediator must resolve relational paradoxes and find ways to move the partners toward a frame of high interdependence and affiliation.

Ascan Koerner and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick’s model of family conflict socialization integrates family relationship schemas, family communica- tion patterns, and family conflict behavior in a process of mutual interdependence and reinforce- ment. Individuals develop mental representations of family members and relationships. These sche- mas create shared social reality. Shared social realities create family communication patterns with specific conflict behaviors. These behaviors impact the development of the schemas that are at the root of the process.

Psychologist John Gottman’s cascade model pre- dicts divorce from a cascading of interrelated pro- cesses: complaining and criticizing, contempt,

defensiveness, and withdrawal. These negative expressions are associated with emotional flooding: When overwhelmed by their partner’s negative behavior, people find it difficult to listen and pro- cess information, and they alleviate negative emo- tions by attacking, defending, or withdrawing. Expressions of contempt and disgust are particu- larly damaging. Expressions of positive emotion can protect against flooding. Communication schol- ars Laura Guerrero and Angela LaValley advocate for communication theories (expectancy violations and communication competence) to expand the cascade model by examining the relations among conflict, emotion, and communication.

Michael Roloff and Courtney Waite Miller con- structed a rich framework integrating current knowledge of conflict and social cognition. Social cognition/knowledge includes frames, beliefs, scripts, rules, and problem appraisal. Roloff and Waite Miller posit that negative events set off cog- nitive processes (mindful activity), which mediate between social knowledge and cognitive and social effects. The cognitive processes considered include expectation violation, attributions, accommoda- tion, influence goals, and sentiment override (how messages are interpreted based on the emotional state of the relationship). The effects in their model consist of thinking about conflict, information pro- cessing, and storytelling (narrative construction).

Daniel Canary developed a model of strategic conflict driven by the idea that competent conflict behavior is mindful. The relationship between con- flict instigation and message production is mediated by three factors: individual differences (especially locus of control); interpretations of the conflict (understood through attribution theory); and instru- mental, self-presentation, and relational goal assess- ment. Goal control is the extent to which individuals understand what they want and are sensitive to their partner’s goals. Canary describes message produc- tion along two dimensions: levels of directness and cooperativeness. A comprehensive list of specific conflict strategies and tactics is integrated into these four categories: direct cooperative, direct competi- tive, indirect cooperative, and indirect competitive. Message production is followed by the other person’s response. This part of the model allows researchers to examine patterns of communication that lead to various outcomes. Patterns and outcomes can cycle back to any previous events in the model.

168 Conflict Communication Theories

The Organizational Context

Organizational conflict usually refers to that which takes place in the context of the workplace or institutional setting, and there is an enormous body of theory and research in this area. The man- agement of organizational conflict has been exam- ined on three fundamental levels: dyadic, group, and institutional. At the dyadic level, theory and research that examine processes of interpersonal conflict in the workplace largely follow a conflict styles approach based on the dual-concern model. At the workgroup level, three traditions have been identified, according to M. Scott Poole and Johny Garner. These three traditions are the instrumen- tal, which focuses on the impact of conflict on group performance and related outcomes; the developmental, which treats conflict as a natural part of group development; and the political, which views conflict as a struggle for power.

At the institutional level, a sizable body of work examines the transition of organizational conflict management programs from those that focus on dispute resolution to broader and more proactive conflict management systems. Based on a compre- hensive review of literature, David Lipsky and Ronald Seeber have developed a comprehensive organizing framework from which to understand this shift. Organizational conflicts manifest them- selves in three forms: disagreements, disputes, and litigation. Managing these three forms of conflict differs according to several factors: the responsible party, the type of conflict, the techniques used, the nature of the outcome, and the extent of third- party involvement. Alternative dispute resolution programs have been steadily on the rise as large organizations increasingly face the rising human and economic cost of disputes and litigation. Such programs, however, do little to prevent conflicts from escalating to dispute or litigation because they typically do not intervene prior to this escalation. Lipsky and Seeber’s organizing model of the research in this area elucidates both the shifts happening in the practice of organizational conflict management and the deeper social processes at play.

The Community Context

Community conflict refers to conflict in the public arena, focusing on communities defined by

physical collocation. Community conflict is more polarizing than interpersonal and organizational conflict because the parties lack intimacy and coordinated activity. Barnett Pearce and Stephen Littlejohn developed a theory of moral conflict: When individuals with incommensurate moral orders interact, intractable conflict can result from mutual frustration and entrenchment. Conflict rooted in the worldviews of the opponents is dif- ficult to manage; the logics of the paradigms do not permit cross-translation. Parties become locked into a dispute, perceiving no other choice. Their language differs; even similar terms have disparate meanings. Neither side understands the other, and both fail to see why the other rejects their case. These dynamics lead each to describe the other as misguided, ignorant, evil, or sick. The theory has been developed through a series of descriptive case studies, including the U.S. Religious Right move- ment and the abortion debate. Moral conflicts cannot be solved through traditional dispute reso- lution; they must be transcended through a process of dialogue. Transcendent communication creates new frames, transforms relationships, and creates opportunities to explore the power and limits of multiple worldviews.

Dialogue theories have their own rich tradition. Kevin Barge has described the relationships among dialogue, conflict, and democratic practice, high- lighting three important theoretic movements that bring these things together: community media- tion, public participation and dialogue, and appre- ciative inquiry (a social constructionist perspective on community development, emphasizing the positive core of community life). Dialogic demo- cratic practice faces the dilemmas of several ten- sions: inclusion–exclusion, deliberative–relational, and macro–micro. Dialogue theories explore how dialogic communication manages conflict and builds community. Dialogue theories include those that are encompassed in the intercultural/ international context, as well.

Other areas of theory in community conflict include environmental conflict, racial/ethnic con- flict, crisis negotiation, and critical approaches. Theories of environmental conflict explore public participation in environmental decision making. Racial or ethnic community conflict theories exam- ine the potential for positive community-building outcomes from the conflict management process

169Conflict Communication Theories

surrounding ethnic identity, minority groups, racial hate incidents, and intercommunal ethnic conflicts. Crisis negotiation, including hostage negotiation, is a unique context for community conflict theory, focusing on the communicative dynamics of con- flict as they are complicated by the potential for injury or death of the involved parties. Finally, critical approaches to community conflict take a cultural studies perspective: Conflict is a defining feature of all social systems and threatens identity. Culture, as a site of conflict, becomes an arena in which changing meanings are negotiated.

The Intercultural/International Context

Intercultural/international conflict refers to con- flicts between two or more different cultural or identity groups. Many communication theories are directly concerned with or have direct applications to intercultural conflict management. Those with separate entries in this volume include anxiety/ uncertainty management theory, expectancy viola- tions theory, cultural types theories, face negotia- tion theory, accommodation theory, and co-cultural theory. International communication and peace theories also address conflict. Many of these include treatments of racial or ethnic conflict; the field of social psychology also has a rich tradition of ethnic and intergroup conflict theory. Other important theories in the intercultural/international context include integrated threat theory (ITT) and the cultural values dimensional (CVD) grid.

ITT, developed by Walter Stephan and Cookie White Stephan, assumes that feelings of fear or threat cause prejudice and identifies four anteced- ent conditions (intergroup conflict history, inter- group knowledge gap, type and frequency of intergroup contact, and societal/group member- ship power status) that escalate or de-escalate the levels of four types of threat (intergroup anxiety/ anticipated consequences, rigid stereotypes, tangible/ realistic threats, and values/symbolic threats). Threat escalation creates biased intergroup atti- tudes (e.g., prejudice) and intergroup conflict cycles, outcomes that then feed off one another.

The CVD grid, developed by Stella Ting-Toomey and John Oetzel, draws from key ideas in anxiety/ uncertainty management theory, ITT theory, expec- tancy violations theory, cultural types theory, and power distance. Power distance refers to cultural

values for status differences and social hierarchies. Small power distance (SPD) cultures value equal power distributions, symmetrical relations, and reward systems based on merit. Large power dis- tance (LPD) cultures accept unequal power distri- butions; asymmetrical relations; and reward systems based on rank, role, and status. The CVD grid pos- its that the individualism–collectivism dimension of cultural types theory interacts with power distance values to create four cultural approaches to conflict: impartial (individualistic, SPD), status–achievement (individualistic, LPD), communal (collectivistic, SPD), and benevolent (collectivistic, LPD).

Conclusion

The study of conflict and communication is broad and diverse at the same time that it espouses a core set of presumptions. These presumptions include the inevitability and constructive nature of conflict, the dynamic nature of goals, and the mutually constitutive relationship between com- munication and conflict. Regardless of the context in which conflict theories are generated, commu- nication scholars have consensus on these basic issues.

Anne Maydan Nicotera

See also Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory; Attribution Theory; Co-Cultural Theory; Constitutive View of Communication; Critical Theory; Cultural Studies; Cultural Types Theories; Expectancy Violations Theory; Face Negotiation Theory; Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono Theory; Intercultural Communication Competence; Intercultural Communication Theories; International Communication Theories; Interracial Communication; Peace Theories; Pragmatics; Racial Formation Theory; Social Exchange Theory; System Theory

Further Readings

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2005). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (5th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Hawes, L. C., & Smith, D. H. (1973). A critique of assumptions underlying the study of communication in conflict. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 423–435.

170 Confucian Communication Theory

Miller, G. R., & Simmons, H. W. (Eds.). (1974). Perspectives on communication in social conflict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2006). The Sage handbook of conflict communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L. L. (Ed.). (1988). Communication and conflict styles in organizations [Special issue]. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3), 291–445.

Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549–599). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ruben, B. D. (1978). Communication and conflict: A system-theoretic perspective. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 202–210.

CONFUCIAN COMMUNICATION THEORY

Confucianism is a worldview, a political ideology, a social ethic, a scholarly tradition, and a way of life. As one of the most prominent traditions of thought, Confucianism has lasting and profound bearings on social, political, and value systems in East Asia. This entry (a) outlines the cardinal prin- ciples of Confucianism, (b) discusses the Confucian view of language, and (c) illustrates the impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asian cultures.

Confucius (551–479 BCE) viewed the universe as an organic whole and all modalities of beings in it as interconnected and governed by a unifying force, Dao (the Way). Dao and tao are the same thing, the Daoist/Taoist notion of the Way. This term is romanized as tao in the older Wade-Giles system and as dao in the modern pinyin sys- tem. This entry uses the latter because it is pho- netically closer to the actual pronunciation of the word in Mandarin, and these days more and more Sinologists and communication scholars on Chinese communication have started to make the switch. Dao constitutes the harmonious organization of life that upholds and perpetuates a moral order. Through following Dao, human beings can gain a sense of self-knowledge; gain insights into the human condition as a whole, as well as one’s own

particular location in it; and acquire de (virtues), the ability to achieve harmony both within oneself and with others.

Cardinal Principles

Confucian teaching lays out three principal virtues to define proper human relationships: ren (human- ness), yi (righteousness), and li (propriety, rite, and ritual). The fundamental concern of Confucianism is ren, to learn to be humane. A person of ren is one who (a) loves all human beings; (b) desiring to develop and nourish oneself, develops and nour- ishes others; and (c) does not do to others what one does not wish done to oneself. Ren can be attained through a process of ceaseless self-cultivation that transforms the private ego to the all-encompassing self, a holistic human existence in harmony with all other beings in the universe.

The second cardinal principle, yi (righteous- ness), states the duties or moral obligations associ- ated with people as they are located within networks of social relations. In Confucian teach- ing, the realization of the self, or the worth of the person, is essentially tied to his or her ability to fulfill his or her social responsibilities. Although Confucius conceived social relationships as often hierarchical, obligations are mutual or reciprocal and required for all parties concerned. The mutu- ality and reciprocity tenets render fulfillment of obligations a moral imperative for everyone. Those who have more power and privilege are given more responsibilities than those who have less.

The third fundamental concept of the Confucian doctrine, li (propriety, rite, and ritual), is the social norms that regulate human actions. Li prescribes the appropriate human conduct with a keen awareness of the principle of ren and genuine con- cern for others. Only through following li can people discipline their mind and action until the proper principles can be enacted in a genuine nature.

Confucianism views the human community as an intrinsic part of people’s quest for self-realization. Self-cultivation is understood as a social or com- munal act that does not happen in seclusion. Self- cultivation is essentially to transcend all forms of human insensitivity, such as egocentrism, selfish- ness, nepotism, parochialism, and ethnocentrism, and to learn to be sensitive to an ever-expanding

171Confucian Communication Theory

network of relationships. Through self-cultivation, one makes oneself available to the human commu- nity and contributes to a social order that enables and encourages self-cultivation.

Confucian View of Language

Based on her close reading of the classical text the Analects of Confucius, Hui-Ching Chang explicated Confucius’s view of language in human interactions and social affairs. Confucius envisaged the purpose of communication as ethical, that is, to adhere to and sustain the moral order of the human commu- nity. Communication is necessary for people to learn and experience their connection and commonality with others and thus to develop sensitivity to them. In this sense, communication is not a functional instrument to accomplish certain tasks. Rather, it is the means of facilitating and reflecting a person’s self-cultivation or moral development. Proper speak- ing ought to follow the principle of li (propriety) and should be appropriate according to the particu- lars of the context. The moral imperative in Confucianism distrusts and discourages overly orna- mented words that do not have substance and do not correspond to the person’s morality. Confucius weighted actions more than words in his assessment of a person’s integrity.

Confucian Influence on Interpersonal Relationships

Because Confucianism has had a lasting impact on the society, government, education, and family in East Asia (e.g., Japan, mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, North Korea, and Vietnam), interpersonal relationships in these countries are conceived and developed in ways that differ from those of the cultures informed by individualism. June Ock Yum has discussed Confucian influences on interpersonal relation- ships and communication patterns in East Asia. According to Yum, East Asians are more attentive to relational contexts in social interaction. Instead of employing universal rules in interaction with all people, East Asian people are more conscious of the position of a person in the complex web of human relations. Socialized in the Confucian tradi- tion that places ultimate emphasis on sensitivity to human relations, as expressed in all three cardinal principles, East Asian people are apt to relate to

others differently in accordance with their rela- tionships with them and different communicative contexts.

In East Asian cultures, reciprocity is envisioned as long-term and asymmetrical. People in indi- vidualistic cultures, such as Canada and the United States, largely define their commitments and obligations to others and to organizations as short-term, symmetrical, or contractual. In the Confucian view, every person is connected with all other beings across time and space as defined by the principle of ren. The very existence of a person is indebted to other beings. Thus, East Asians do not try to “keep score” or “make it even” as soon as possible in their interactions with others. Instead, reciprocity as the organizing principle of relationships entails a never-ending project of self-cultivation. It is precisely because in East Asia relationships are recognized as long- term and all encompassing in social affairs that the distinction between public and private domains disappears. People in East Asian cultures tend to develop relationships across the public and pri- vate spheres to ensure mutual trust and reciproc- ity. On the other hand, the long-term relationships in almost every aspect of life may result in a sharp distinction between in-group members and out- group members.

Another distinctive characteristic of East Asian relationships is the employment of infor- mal intermediaries. In East Asian cultures, with their emphasis on the principles of yi and li, it is not what is said but who says it that is more important. East Asians prefer mutual acquain- tances who have proper relationships with both parties concerned instead of contract profession- als (e.g., lawyers, negotiators, marriage counsel- ors) when mediating, negotiating, or resolving conflicts.

Confucianism and Communication Patterns

The influence of Confucianism can also be observed in communication patterns in East Asian cultures. The Confucian concern with morality and ever- expanding relationships is reflected in the process- oriented view of communication in East Asia. Communication is viewed as an infinite process of interpretation and interaction. Grounded in the Confucian awareness of particularity in

172 Consequentiality of Communication

relationships, East Asian people prefer a differenti- ated linguistic code that is responsive to different relational contexts in communication. For instance, East Asian languages have more elaborate honorific linguistic systems than English does. Communication competence in East Asian cultures thus includes the ability to correctly assess where one stands in relation to the other and to make the appropriate linguistic choice accordingly. The care for harmonious relationships in Confucian teach- ing steers East Asians away from overreliance on direct communication. Indirect modes of commu- nication are valued precisely because of the concern for the other person’s face. Finally, com- munication in East Asian cultures is more receiver centered than sender centered, which is the domi- nant model in Western cultures. The use of indirect communication leaves more room for interpreta- tion. Receiver-centered communication requires the listener to attend to different situations and relationships as well as to the speaker’s emotional and material needs in order to discern the implicit meanings the message contains. This mode of com- munication is a practice of the Confucian cardinal principle of ren, ultimate sensitivity toward others.

Jing Yin

See also Asian Communication Theory; Chinese Harmony Theory; Taoist Communication Theory

Further Readings

Chang, H.-C. (2008). Language and words: Communication in the Analects of Confucius. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp. 95–112). New York: Routledge.

Chen, G.-M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93–105.

Tu, W. (1985). Confucian thought: Selfhood as creative transformation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tu, W. (1995). Confucianism. In A. Sharma (Ed.), Our religions (pp. 140–227). San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 374–388.

CONSEQUENTIALITY OF COMMUNICATION Consequentiality is a framework for understanding the features and dynamics of the communication process that enable it to have an impact on social and cultural life. It focuses attention on the con- tinuous production of behavior by communicators, the coordination required as each communicator adjusts to the unfolding scene or situation, and the meanings that arise in and through this process. Consequentiality serves as a contrast to alternative frameworks that study the effects of particular behavioral acts (“independent variables”) on other behavior (“dependent variables”) or the effects of mental or emotional states on behavior.

The consequentiality framework acknowledges the contingent and unpredictable quality of com- munication. The behavior communicators produce at any one time is dependent on what else is hap- pening in the immediate circumstances: what all the participants have contributed to the scene up to that point; what is occurring simultaneously; and par- ticipants’ calculation of what might happen next in the sequence to confirm, clarify, or even reshape the meaning and direction of the event. However, unpredictability does not mean that the communi- cation process occurs randomly. Rather, it is recog- nition of communicators’ ability to deploy selectively various resources for behavior (e.g., language, cul- tural expectations, social obligations) and, in doing so, to bring order and meaning to each unique com- munication event. Thus, the framework posits that the communication process makes use of cultural, psychological, and social resources but is a phenom- enon sui generis, requiring its own explanations.

Consequentiality is not a single theory or research approach. Rather, the consequentiality framework permits study of the communication process by means of a wide variety of theories and methods, including conversation analysis, coordi- nated management of meaning, the ethnography of speaking, and social communication.

The framework was initially proposed as a direction for communication theory in an anthol- ogy titled The Consequentiality of Communication, edited by Stuart J. Sigman in 1995, with contribu- tions from scholars representing a variety of perspectives. It developed from the concern that

173Consequentiality of Communication

communication scholars began to address in the late 1970s and early 1980s that the communica- tion discipline borrowed extensively from psychol- ogy; focused on the cognitive, emotional, and personality traits that appeared to influence the production of behavior; and did not consider how the ongoing process unfolded and was managed by communicators. Rather than provide a single com- munication theory, the initial articulation of conse- quentiality was intended to serve as a unifying framework for theory development and as a pointer to a set of observations about communica- tion that theorists should attempt to explain.

The aforementioned studies from the 1970s onward acknowledged that the communication process itself, rather than cultural, psychological, or social antecedents to communication, is the proper study for the discipline. These early studies on the “doing” of communication primarily focused on the cultural and social resources that membership in a community makes available to communicators— the “codes,” “rules,” or “scripts” for behavior. The consequentiality framework acknowledges the important direction in the discipline’s history repre- sented by a rules approach. Consequentiality pushes the analysis further by focusing on the use and appearance of code resources in actual situations and on the constitutive role played by communica- tion in bringing into existence social categories, cultural patterns, and psychological conditions.

Research within the consequentiality frame- work asks what is done with the codes and how behavior produces social reality. As such, the framework acknowledges the following observa- tions about communication and encourages inves- tigation of their structure and import:

Diversity: The consequentiality framework notes that in any given situation, there may be multiple codes that are appropriate and may be invoked. As such, communicators may face uncertainty as to which goals, purposes, and roles are operative at any one time and may need to negotiate the definition of the situation and adjust their unfolding behavioral contributions accordingly.

Optionality: Even in those situations in which the range of applicable codes is minimal (or a single script from multiple possibilities has apparently been invoked and made operative), the rules may be

structured with choice nodes—moments when a collection of behaviors might be selected from and when each particular selection may move the scene in one direction or another. As Ferdinand de Saussure taught, scripts and rules have multiple levels and paradigmatic options for behavioral production, and it is only in the actual behavioral moment that the codes exact normative force.

Fluid contextuality: The definition of a situation and the associated codes for behavior may change during the unfolding event. Communication acts may not only establish a normative trajectory for the encounter but may also retrospectively formulate the meaning and import of earlier behavior. This may require communicators to confirm their understanding of their communication engagement and produce new entailments for subsequent action. Thus, according to Saussure, behavioral units can be seen in syntagmatic relationship, that is, as part of patterned sequences that unfold across time.

Metacommunication: Human beings exhibit the capacity to engage in communication with their fellows and to engage in communication about their communication. They may be called on to account for their behavior and to engage in repair work when misunderstanding, offenses, and misalignments have been produced. New rule systems, role relationships, and institutional structures may emerge from the alignments that communicators make as part of this metacommunication.

Consequentiality cannot be studied apart from particular communication situations and the license that persons may exercise in shaping the significance and direction of those situations. Com- munication theorist Robert E. Sanders offers a use- ful heuristic for considering the extent to which the consequentiality framework can be applied to any particular situation. Sanders, who refers to his approach as neo-rhetorical, suggests a distinction between weak and strong senses of consequential- ity. Focusing on communicators’ identities, Sanders suggests that in the weak sense of consequentiality, communication is used to provide information about the communicators’ social identities and relationships and their behavioral obligations in the situation. Events in which the communication process is weakly consequential are those with nor- matively rigid cultural and social codes; the codes

174 Consequentiality of Communication

must be taken for granted and require communica- tors to confirm and inform each other about their unquestionable roles. In contrast, the strong sense of consequentiality is relevant to those situations for which identities are unknown, ambiguous, and/or contested, and considers the process by which identi- ties, relationships, and roles are actively constructed and negotiated—and not merely conveyed—by the participants.

Broadening the view from communication about identity, weak consequentiality refers to those events for which there is a rigid behavioral script, with minimal choice nodes and severe penalty for deviations and modifications. A church service might serve as an example of an event for which the communication of the participants is weakly consequential. Communicators must be able to know what scene is being enacted and what the obligations for their specific behavioral contribu- tions to that scene are, but adherence to the script is paramount.

Strong consequentiality encompasses situations for which the behavioral script is multifaceted, with opportunities for multiple actors, intentions, and behavioral options to develop and be acted on during the course of the event. The trajectory or outcome of an event with strong consequentiality is not determined at the outset and instead unfolds through moment-by-moment behavioral produc- tion. Initial encounters such as dating, job inter- views, and unplanned conversations are examples of this type of situation.

The weak-versus-strong distinction is not intended to lead to the characterization of situa- tions as absolutely one or the other. The heuristic assumes that communication across acts and situ- ations is consequential. In the case of the church service, for example, the demonstrated skill of the priest during a religious service, the attentiveness of the parishioners, and other acts that transpire may result in differing spiritual feelings being gen- erated. Thus, the existence of a prescribed liturgy does not detract from the fact that the liturgy must be enacted and that enactment may evidence com- munication consequentiality. Conversely, while first social encounters such as a romantic date or professional interview may not have a clear end state or narrative arc, they are bound by protocols and expectations. Thus, even strong consequenti- ality is constrained by codes for behavior.

The notion of consequentiality harkens back to earlier distinctions within the field of structural and sociolinguistics, that between langue (language) and parole (word; Ferdinand de Saussure) and compe- tence and performance (Noam Chomsky, Dell Hymes). These pairs of distinctions posit, respec- tively, a grammar consisting of an idealized set of rules for behavior—both verbal and nonverbal— and the actual, moment-by-moment behavioral production that inexactly manifests the grammar. However, for the consequentiality framework, per- formance (the communication process) is not a lesser manifestation of codes but rather the selective and strategic employment of codes. Humans make selections from a repertoire of symbols, values, and strategies, and these selections shape subsequent behavior, institutional commitments, and social identities. Equally, meanings and patterns may emerge from communication situations, and these may yield new institutional and relational arrange- ments and thus new codes for subsequent behavior.

Though primarily concerned with interpersonal (face-to-face) communication, the consequential- ity framework has been employed in journalism, mass communication, and organizational commu- nication scholarship. Research has examined the writing process, in which each draft produces a rhetorical strategy and logic that may influence and be refined by subsequent drafts. Others have studied how organizations invoke their cultural narratives and subtly shape their future course through ritualized reenactment and modification of these narratives and the creation of new ones. Another direction that has been taken is the appli- cation of consequentiality to the development of a theory of ludicity, the human capacity for play and recreation. Complementing earlier scholar- ship on the universal and biological origins of play, this work suggests that individual acts of playmaking, while subject to rules of engagement, exhibit ludic consequentiality, or the capacity for play to establish (and not merely reflect) identities and relational meanings for the participants.

In brief, while theorists may refer to the conse- quences of any single act of behavior or cognition, one does not generally refer to an act’s consequen- tiality; the latter term is applicable to the more inclusive communication process.

Stuart J. Sigman

175Constitutive View of Communication

See also Conversation Analysis; Coordinated Management of Meaning; Ethnography of Communication; Metacommunication; Rules Theories; Sense-Making; Social Construction of Reality; Social Interaction Theories; Variable Analytic Tradition

Further Readings

Bamberg, M. (2004). Narrative discourse and identities. In J. C. Meister, T. Kindt, W. Schernus, & M. Stein (Eds.), Narratology beyond literary criticism (pp. 213–237). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Penman, R. (2000). Reconstructing communicating: Looking to a future. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sigman, S. J. (Ed.). (1995). The consequentiality of communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sigman, S. J. (1995). Question: Evidence of what? Answer: Communication. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 79–84.

CONSISTENCY THEORIES

See Attitude Theory; Cognitive Dissonance Theory; Co-Orientation Theory; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

CONSTITUTIVE VIEW OF COMMUNICATION

To take a constitutive view of communication means to presume that communication, or inter- action, is a process of meaning creation or social construction. The fundamental idea of constitu- tion has had enormous influence on the field of communication, especially in the areas of interper- sonal communication and organizational commu- nication. An important implication of a constitutive view is that communication is assumed to be the basic building block for social entities, such as personal relationships and organizations. This entry provides a brief history of the origins of the constitutive view, explains its basic assumptions, and examines examples of applications in inter- personal and organizational communication.

Background: Communication Models

Early communication theory took the form of models. In a classic communication theory text- book published in 1972, C. David Mortenson defined a model as a systematic representation of an object or event in idealized and abstract form. A model of communication is a still pic- ture of a moving process. Models of communi- cation are useful in identifying the basic components of the communication process and how they are related. A model aids in conceptu- alizing processes of interest and in generating questions for richer forms of theory. Models are helpful as metaphors that guide our ability to visualize concepts of interest in terms of one another as they help us to clarify complex pro- cesses. However, communication models are oversimplified and mask complex processes that cannot be modeled, often leading to premature conclusions. Models are very limited and thus are best thought of as only a most rudimentary form of theory. The earliest known models of communication were developed by Aristotle in his theories of rhetoric and proof. Aristotle’s purpose was prescriptive—to instruct others to be effective persuasive speakers.

Contemporary communication theory is descriptive—its purpose is to describe, explain, predict, and/or control communication phenom- ena. Early-20th-century views of communication were highly mechanistic, treating communication as a machine-like process wherein information or messages are depicted as traveling through chan- nels. These mechanistic models are also known as linear models because the communication process is depicted as a line. The most influential linear model is Shannon and Weaver’s mathematical model, developed to help telephone engineers design efficient ways to transmit electrical signals from place to place. The Shannon–Weaver math- ematical model was essentially a line from left to right that traveled through boxes, depicting an information source sending a message through a transmitter (encoder), which transforms the mes- sage to a signal, sending it through a channel that is affected by noise. The signal then passes through a receiver (decoder), which transforms the signal back to a message that finally reaches its destina- tion. The Shannon–Weaver model was not meant

176 Constitutive View of Communication

to describe face-to-face human communication, but it provided a baseline from which to do so.

Numerous models of face-to-face human com- munication were based on the Shannon–Weaver linear model. Scholars of human communication took a message-centered approach in modeling communication. The most basic form of linear communication models is often called a model of communication-as-action, depicting a sender (or a source or a speaker) transmitting a message through some channel to a receiver—still a line drawn from left to right. In 1960, communication scholar David Berlo coined the term SMCR to describe this type of linear model, denoting the model compo- nents of sender (or speaker or source), message, channel, and receiver. Models that depicted communication-as-action were unsatisfactory because they were too heavily focused on the sender or source of the originating message.

In 1954, Wilbur Schramm created one of the first models of face-to-face human communica- tion. Rather than a sender and a receiver, Schramm’s model depicted interpreters who were simultane- ously encoders and decoders. Though messages were still depicted as traveling along a line, the line was circular, beginning with the first interpreter as an encoder, traveling to the second interpreter as a decoder, and then returning from the second inter- preter as an encoder back to the original inter- preter as a decoder. Schramm was the first scholar to model communication as an interactive process. This form of model is known as a circular model, also called a model of communication-as- interaction. Schramm’s inclusion of the notion of interpretation is the conceptual basis for the meaning-centered approach at the heart of the constitutive view.

These basic models of communication (linear/ action and circular/interaction) are often referred to as a transmissive view of communication because they depict communication as a process by which something (a message, information, etc.) is trans- mitted from person to person. But even models of communication-as-interaction quickly became unsatisfactory as our thinking became more sophis- ticated and our focus shifted from messages to meaning. Communication scholars began to focus on the communication process not as the exchange of messages or mere transmission of meaning but as the creation of meaning.

The third generation of communication models was nonlinear models, also called models of com- munication as transaction. Transactional models focus on the functions of communication and rep- resent the origins of the constitutive view of com- munication. The most famous of these models was developed by Dean Barnlund in 1970. Barnlund used a complex graphic representation of spirals and curved arrows to represent the continuous, unrepeatable, irreversible nature of communica- tion. Meaning was seen as assigned or attributed rather than received. Along with interactants, decoding, encoding, and messages, Barnlund’s model included a set of valenced cues: public cues (in the environment), private cues (in or on the persons), and deliberate behavioral cues (nonver- bal and verbal). All these components were depicted as interrelated and constantly evolving.

The idea of communication as a transaction through which communicators created meaning had a profound effect on the field. Scholars quickly moved beyond creating additional graphic repre- sentations of communication processes in the form of pictorial models. The rudimentary nature of pictorial representation can only roughly approxi- mate the process of meaning creation. This shift from linear to nonlinear modeling represents a shift in thinking from a transmissive to a constitu- tive view of communication.

First-Order Model or Metamodel

In 1999, Robert Craig described the constitutive view by distinguishing first-order from second- order phenomena. A first-order phenomenon explains second-order phenomena. According to Craig, the constitutive view of communication posits that communication is not a secondary phe- nomenon that can be explained by antecedent fac- tors (such as psychological, sociological, cultural, or economic factors). Instead, communication is the primary, constitutive social process that explains all these other factors. Basically, commu- nication is the root of other social processes rather than the result.

Craig also distinguished between first-order models and metamodels. A first-order model is a symbolic representation of communication pro- cesses themselves. A first-order model describes the characteristics of phenomena in the world. A

177Constitutive View of Communication

metamodel is a model of communication models. A metamodel describes the characteristics of theo- retic representations of phenomena. Craig argued that the constitutive view should be seen both as a first-order model of communication processes themselves and as a metamodel that explains the process of theorizing.

As a first-order model, the constitutive view depicts communication as a process of meaning making, as described above. As a metamodel, the constitutive view allows us to think of different communication models as different ways of consti- tuting the communication process symbolically for particular purposes. The advantage of this way of thinking is that first-order constitutive models do not necessarily mean the rejection of transmissive models, as had been traditionally thought. As a metamodel, the constitutive view does not address the nature of communication itself but rather the ways in which we think about it as theorists. Hence, we can comfortably constitute communication as constitutive (as in a transactional model) for one purpose and constitute communication as transmis- sive (as in SMCR models) for another. For example, when we seek to understand the creation of com- plex organizational systems, a constitutive view suits our purposes. However, when we seek to understand how information originates, is dissemi- nated among people and groups, and achieves goals within these complex organizational systems, a transmissive view may be more fruitful. Craig’s views were somewhat controversial and sparked a great deal of debate. However, his careful concep- tual distinctions were important for the field.

Communication Theories

We will now turn our attention to two theoretical perspectives grounded in a constitutive view of communication: the relational perspective and communicative constitution of organization (CCO). Both of these traditions take the constitutive view further than simple meaning creation. Communication is seen not only as creating mean- ing but as creating, or constituting, social entities (personal relationships and organizations, respec- tively). In other words, personal relationships and organizations are seen as made of or made from communication. This is a fundamentally constitu- tive view because communication is theorized not

as merely one factor that influences the formation of the social entities but rather as the very essence of their nature.

The Relational Perspective

The relational perspective is also known as the interactive view and as pragmatics; it rests on sys- tems theory. Because this volume has entries devoted to pragmatics and systems theory, our treatment here will be quite brief, focusing only on the way in which this perspective is grounded in the constitutive view. Because it stems from a constitutive view, the relational perspective was able to accomplish three basic analytic shifts from earlier theories of relationships. First, the focus of analysis changed from the individual to interac- tion. Second, observation shifted from psycho- logical processes to systemic processes. Finally, whereas previous perspectives on relationships stud- ied individuals in the context of relationships, the relational perspective studied relationships themselves. In short, a constitutive view allows the assumption that a relationship is between people, not within them. Pragmatics scholars define relationship as an emergent social structur- ing created by and defined by communication patterns. As such, relational process and relational form are seen as mutually constitutive—each cre- ating and defining the other. As things or entities, then, relationships are communicatively consti- tuted (made of or made by communication).

Communicative Constitution of Organization

CCO theory is a relatively recent and rapidly growing body of organizational communication theory grounded in a constitutive view. The notion of CCO has a variety of theoretic roots, among them (in alphabetical order) critical discourse analysis, critical theory, ethnomethodology, Marxist theory, narrative theory, philosophy, prag- matics, rules theory, semiology, speech act theory, structuration theory, and systems theory. In 2000, a special issue of the Electronic Journal of Communication focused on communication as a constitutive process in organizations and organiz- ing. This issue focused attention on CCO as a par- ticular theoretic tradition. One of the most prolific scholars in the CCO tradition is James R. Taylor,

178 Constitutive View of Communication

emeritus professor from the University of Montréal. Taylor’s work has been so influential that it has initiated a focused theoretical perspective in CCO, which has come to be known as the Montréal School. Scholars affiliated with the Montréal School include François Cooren, Daniel Robichaud, Hélène Giroux, Boris Brummans, and Mathieu Chaput, among others. One of the key constructs focused on by Montréal School scholars is agency—the ability to act on the world. One of their more controversial claims is that nonhumans (such as documents and road signs) have agency. Other organizational communication scholars pursuing CCO theory include Linda L. Putnam, Robert D. McPhee, Gail Fairhurst, Lawrence D. Browning, Timothy Kuhn, Karen Ashcraft, Anne M. Nicotera, and several others. There is a great deal of variation and debate among CCO scholars, but all are united in the constitutive view of communication. It must also be noted that CCO theory is not unique to the discipline of communication; organizational stud- ies is a multidisciplinary and international body of work that spans many social disciplines, each of which makes contributions to CCO theory. Some of the most influential CCO research has origi- nated in other disciplines.

Two Specific CCO Theories

Although many communication scholars theorize about CCO processes, two theories stand out as most influential: Taylor’s conversation and text theory and McPhee’s four flows. Each of these is described briefly, highlighting their grounding in the constitu- tive view. Taylor’s conversation and text theory rests on a simple distinction between two key concepts: conversation and text. Text can be defined as both the content and the outcome of interaction. A text can be in written form (such as policy manuals) or unwritten form (such as decisions made in a meeting that are repeated to others). Conversation is the com- municative interaction itself. Text is meaning and outcome; conversation is activity. Conversation is about text and produces/reproduces text. Taylor and his many coauthors, most notably Elizabeth VanEvery, discuss the translation process from con- versation to text. Conversations must be interpreted through processes of punctuation and sensemak- ing. Sensemaking will depend on the interactants’ interpretive frames. This sensemaking could occur

psychologically (in the minds of the interactants) or might be formalized (such as providing a glossary of terms to an audience).

Organizational communication is created by inter- action in this way. In mutually constitutive fashion, organizational communication then defines the context through which we transform text into con- versation. Organizational communication becomes formalized through processes of distanciation—the distance between the intended meaning of the speaker(s) and what is created and retained in inter- action. Taylor and his colleagues posit “six degrees of separation” by which text and conversation become translated to complex organizational forms. The cap- sule summaries here appeared in Katherine Miller’s communication theory textbook published in 2005.

First degree: Intent of the speaker is translated into action and embedded in conversation.

Second degree: Events of the conversation are translated into a narrative representation, making it possible to understand the meaning of the exchange.

Third degree: The text is transcribed (objecti- fied) on some permanent or semipermanent medium (e.g., the minutes of a meeting).

Fourth degree: A specialized language is devel- oped to encourage and channel subsequent texts and conversations.

Fifth degree: The text and conversations are transformed into material and physical frames (e.g., laboratories, conference rooms, organiza- tional charts, procedural manuals).

Sixth degree: A standardized form is disseminated and defused to a broader public (e.g., media reports and representations of organizational forms and practices).

In this way, organization—both as a process and as a social entity—can be seen to be commu- nicatively constituted.

Robert D. McPhee takes a very different approach, suggesting that communication processes are com- prised of four flows that constitute organization. The four flows are membership negotiation, organi- zational self-structuring, activity coordination, and institutional positioning (in the social order of insti- tutions). The flows are separate only for the pur- poses of analysis. Any message or episode of interaction can contribute to multiple flows, and processes identified with a specific flow can overlap with those identified with one or more other flows.

179Constructivism

The four are distinct because any one is constitutive of the organization. Flows are multidirectional and topically variable. Communication in the member- ship negotiation flow focuses on the relationship of members to the organization. The organizational self-structuring flow includes communication related to the organization’s form, boundaries, goals, poli- cies, procedures, and any other process related to its identity. The third flow, activity coordination, includes all interaction related to connecting and shaping work processes and joint actions. This includes both cooperative and conflicted interac- tion. Fourth, the institutional positioning flow is comprised of communication related to the organi- zation’s relationship to other organizations in its societal environment. In each flow a social structure is generated through interaction. The flows can con- trol or condition one another. Together, these com- munication flows constitute organization—both as a process and as a social entity.

Conclusion

The relational perspective and CCO theory are only two examples of theoretic traditions in com- munication that are grounded in a constitutive view. The field of communication has numerous theories grounded in this view. Any scholar who defines communication as a meaning-making pro- cess is following a constitutive view, quite distinct from a transmissive view, which defines communi- cation as a process by which something is trans- mitted or exchanged.

Anne Maydan Nicotera

See also Cultural Studies; Language and Communication; Meaning Theories; Narrative and Narratology; Organizational Culture; Pragmatics; Process of Communication; Relational Communication Theory; Rules Theories; Semiotics and Semiology; Sense- Making; Social Construction of Reality; Social Interaction Theories; Speech Act Theory; Structuration Theory; Symbolic Interactionism

Further Readings

Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K. K. Sereno & C. D. Mortensen (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory (pp. 83–102). New York: Harper & Row.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.

Craig, R. T. (2001). Minding my metamodel, mending Myers. Communication Theory, 11, 133–142.

Craig, R. T. (2007). Pragmatism in the field of communication theory. Communication Theory, 17, 125–145.

Myers, D. (2001). A pox on all compromises: Reply to Craig (1999). Communication Theory, 11, 231–240.

Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2008). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.

Rogers, L. E., & Escudero, V. (Eds.). (2003). Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

CONSTRUCTION-INTEGRATION MODEL

See Cognitive Theories

CONSTRUCTIVISM

In its original form, constructivism refers to the study of how individual human mental structures are constructed over time and how neuronal net- works previously trained to perform given sym- bolic actions become conditions to subsequent ones. As mental structures develop, they define a person’s ability to engage in other actions in the future. This means that certain symbolic actions cannot be performed if certain previous ones have not matured. For example, abstract hypotheses such as those found in mathematics or physics can be formulated only if the individual has previously learned to formulate hypotheses based on empiri- cal data emerging from concrete experiences. Therefore, the mental exercise leading the person to perform a symbolic action takes place only if necessary (organic) and sufficient (experiential) conditions for further construction have previously been met.

180 Constructivism

As with many other schools of thought that produced fertile terms that became fashionable and lost their original meanings, many variations on the use of the term constructivism unrelated to its original formulation have arisen over the years. There are, thus, many constructivisms, each proposed by different authors and anchored in different epistemologies. This entry provides an overview of various uses of this term in differ- ent disciplines, such as biology and psychology, that contributed to communication theories.

Historic Context

Constructivism, originally known as genetic epis- temology, was first introduced and coined by the Swiss thinker Jean Piaget, who studied the bio- logical roots of knowledge. He was interested in unveiling how human beings know the world and empirically investigated how knowledge emerges and progresses through individual mental trans- formations in social environments. The human process of knowing, according to Piaget, can be understood only through a carefully designed research program aiming to unveil how knowl- edge develops over time through biological proc- esses of assimilation and accommodation, leading to adaptation. Although these terms are common in general biology, Piaget proposed a biology of knowing, in which assimilation, accommodation, and adaptation are considered stages of the sym- bolic processes, necessary for knowledge learning that will enable people to make sense of the world.

In cognitive terms, assimilation accounts for absorbing the meaning related to a given content without changing structured knowledge previ- ously embedded in the neural networks, while accommodation leads to reorganization of neural systems and conceptual change. Both assimila- tion and accommodation processes are necessary for symbolic adaptation to or sense making about the environment. Piaget chose to study children of all ages and use the methodological tools of psychology in order to verify the hypoth- esis that knowledge is constructed over time through complex interactions in which the indi- vidual makes sense of self and of the world. Construction, then, occurs when the neural path- ways of the mind are progressively shaped

through interactions with the world. Once knowl- edge is achieved (learned), the individual cannot unlearn it unless there is brain injury or a degen- erative mental illness. This developmental proc- ess starts with the body. Movements translate a logic of brain functioning (logic of actions) that lies below the surface, followed by language acquisition and the development of logical rea- soning founded on empirical experiences (concrete logic), followed by the development of reflective abstraction—or metacognition—that enables the individual to solve complex symbolic problems in the absence of empirical verification (opera- tory logic).

Piaget’s ideas turned out to be very influential in many fields. Unfortunately, his contributions to communication were overshadowed by the revolu- tion triggered by his theory in psychology and education. Piaget also provided epistemological con- tributions to sociology, biology, mathematics, phys- ics, and, to a lesser extent, logic. His work resonated with certain “ecological” approaches in cybernetics that would later lead to systems theory, and it also had a direct impact on cognitive science.

These two main developments (ecological- systemic and cognitive approaches) helped to shape the ideas of certain scholars in the emerging field of communication studies who called them- selves constructivists and their theories construc- tivism. Ecological-systemic theorists borrowed the term constructivist that gave academic celebrity to Piaget’s scientific discoveries while taking away its original meaning. In contrast, the cognitive scien- tists translated concepts issued from constructivist epistemology and its qualitative and logical approaches into empiricist epistemology, thanks to the introduction of neobehaviorist experimen- tal methodologies.

Common to all these approaches was the importance given to biology—the idea of organic development and organic systems—and the inter- est in discourse, in terms of both structure (logics, argumentation) and content (meanings).

The Constructivist Communication Schools

The School of Neuchâtel

Jean-Blaise Grize, a Swiss logician of the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland who collaborated on

181Constructivism

Piaget’s research, assumed the challenge of de veloping the field of communication from a genetic stand- point. Trained as a logician and mathematician, Grize became particularly interest ed in unveiling the logic behind everyday communication that en ables human beings to reason and make sense of the world. His communication theory, schematizza tion, derives from the Piagetian notion of scheme, later incorporated by cognitive science. In Grize’s theory, all communication actions are schematizations because interlocutors base their communication efforts on constructed symbolic schemes.

These constructed schemes have a natural logi- cal structure that carries meaning resulting from complex psychosocial processes. Each word uttered in a sentence carries with it individual motivations that are translated into action as goals. Individual and social representations formed in the mind of the communicator are made available to others to be reinterpreted and rebuilt. In addition, sociocul- tural constructs enable those representations to be translated as words and sentences. Language is understood as a permanent sociohistorical build- ing process that individuals rebuild constantly while communicating.

In addition to schematization, Grize and his collaborators, Denis Miéville and Marie-Jeanne Borel, developed a new branch of logic, natural logic, to focus on how the mind reasons through language. Natural logic studies the thinking oper- ations that enable the construction of meanings in argumentation processes, distancing itself from both formal logic and empiricist informal logic approaches such as those of Stephen Toulmin, John R. Searle, and John L. Austin. In addition to being a specific branch of logic, natural logic can also be seen as a method to study schematizations in the communication process. In addition to pre- vious developments in Europe, the study of natu- ral logic, under the coordination of Grize and Miéville, has recently been expanded by the research of Emilio Gattico in Italy and Milton N. Campos in Canada.

The North American Constructivist School

North American communication constructiv- ists base their use of the term constructivism on George Kelly’s influential psychological work,

namely, The Psychology of Personal Constructs, published in 1955. Kelly postulates that people understand experience in terms of categories that distinguish one thing from another in sets of opposites. These contrasts (black–white, tall– short, fast–slow) are constructs that comprise a system of ideas with which individuals come to understand their experience and anticipate future events, an idea quite distant from Piaget’s origi- nal constructivist epistemology.

Certain scholars in the interpersonal or “speech” branch of communication studies were strongly influenced by Kelly and developed an openly constructivist perspective in their research. The most influential is Jesse G. Delia, who inau- gurated what is known as the communication constructivist school. Delia and his colleagues (James L. Applegate, Brant R. Burleson, Ruth Anne Clark, and Daniel J. O’Keefe, among oth- ers) promoted the core functionalist idea that people develop personal constructs out of experi- ence and apply these when they face new experi- ences. The repetitive character of constructs borrowed by Delia from Kelly is very similar to the notion of scheme in Piagetian theory. In fact, constructivist scholars in the Delia tradition refer to sets of constructs as interpretive schemes. What is different and very original is that this research program, borrowing procedures from neobehav- iorist experimental science, focuses on how con- structs lead the individual to anticipate and respond to situations in terms of the communica- tive messages that will be used.

A person’s communication is influenced by his or her cognitive complexity, related to the number of constructs in a person’s cognitive system, or the degree of differentiation a person is able to make. Cognitive complexity is developmental. As individuals mature, the cognitive system moves from relative simplicity to relative complexity, but some persons are more complex than others, so cognitive complexity is dependent as well on the individual. In addition, a given individual will have greater complexity in some subjects than in others. The primary claim of this version of constructivism is that the increased differentia- tion that comes with cognitive complexity ena- bles individuals to craft messages that adapt more effectively to listeners, so-called person- centered messages.

182 Constructivism

The Ecology-of-Mind Constructivist Scholars

Information processing theory and other theo- retical approaches influenced by cybernetics have presented themselves as challenges to traditional behaviorism in that they all converge to the idea that it is possible to study mental processes, con- sidered doubtful by behaviorist thinkers such as John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner. This was the approach of the North American scholars who developed different versions of mind ecology, also known to be constructivists.

Although in many ways the different construc- tivists discussed previously were connected with the cybernetic movement and considered biology fundamental for understanding communication, the constructivism that is presently mainstream is the one derived from the works of Gregory Bateson, a British anthropologist who immigrated to the United States, and is to a certain extent epis- temologically consistent with the constructionism of Bruno Latour, a French sociologist of science. Later, others such as Ernst von Glasersfeld from Germany and Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela from Chile also developed mind-ecology approaches that were rapidly adapted to commu- nication studies. The phrase ecology of the mind, however, was coined by Gregory Bateson.

Bateson is the most influential of the ecology group and helped shape the destiny of communica- tion studies from an empiricist system perspective. He argued that both logical and quantitative accounts were inappropriate to study how com- munication systems evolve. His work influenced communication schools such as the Palo Alto group, whose main theoretician is Paul Watzlawick.

In contrast to Bateson, Ernst von Glasersfeld, a German psychologist, cyberneticist, and journalist, proposed the term radical constructivism as a way to counter the growing influence of ecology-of- mind constructivists who reduced communication to meanings. For von Glasersfeld, the construction of communication is revealed by its formal struc- ture and dynamics, that is, signals on which mean- ings are molded. People attribute meanings to words by interpreting the signals of language, trans- lating them in the context of their experiences, and constructing communication structures that are both syntactical and semantic. From this view- point, von Glasersfeld was indebted to Piaget, who

highlighted that interaction occurs between the structuring activity of the subject (neural net- works) and his or her subjectivity (the content of experience). However, and differently from genetic epistemology, von Glasersfeld tended to agree with the lack of differentiation between subject and object advanced by phenomenological epistemology.

Humberto Maturana, and later Francisco Varela, both phenomenologists, not only contrib- uted to von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism but also had a huge influence in what became known as second-order cybernetics, a movement with direct consequences for communication stud- ies. Maturana, who considered cognition as the other side of perception, was decidedly phenome- nological. His biological phenomenology, which was later theorized by Varela as naturalizing phe- nomenology, kept subject and object indistinct from one another. Applied to communication theory, naturalizing phenomenology sees interac- tion as totalities of forever-emerging subjects. These phenomena form autopoietic systems, or the autoproduction of communication systems in which subject and object are dissolved into one another, and boundaries traditionally attributed to the subject–object pair by all other epistemologies are destroyed. Autopoiesis is consistent with philo- sophical phenomenology, according to which real- ity is a totality in which no part can be studied separately to understand the whole.

This view has very little to do with any idea of construction, genetic or otherwise, because it is based on the premise that communication is an emerging process of living, denying any possibility of studying parts such as what is communicated (message), the timing of the communication (dynamics of interaction), and the parties transmit- ting or receiving the communication (subjects). All the preceding perspectives demand that the researcher assume a separation between cognitive representations, or mental entities, and the subject or object being represented. In contrast with this view, phenomenologists, and more recently empiri- cists in the pragmatic tradition, completely deny representation as being possible. In the “place” of representation (or better put, the “absence of a pos- sibility of place”), Maturana and Varela propose enaction as the process of the emergence of living that enables the possibility of communication.

183Constructivism

What is curious in Maturana and Varela’s constructivism is that although it inspired many thinkers to reconceptualize communication in autopoietic terms, these same thinkers would probably answer a resounding no to the question, Are you a phenomenologist? The second-order cybernetics is, thus, an “unframed” school of thought that invented phenomenological constructivism.

Recognized authors working from this perspec- tive in communication studies include Klaus Krippendorff, who proposed the recursive com- munication theory. According to Krippendorff, communication is a reflexive process, meaning that each aspect of communication can be under- stood only in terms of other aspects of communi- cation. Therefore, communication needs to be studied from within itself. In other words, com- munication can be studied only from the perspec- tive of the discourse it produces. According to the theory, individual practices are fed by construc- tions of reality that, in turn, feed practices, both issued from human understanding. The main ele- ments of the theory are the following:

1. Understanding is the core of communication processes; “construction” is to be found in the way individual practices lead to how reality is understood.

2. Communication processes are social phenomena that are reflexively built.

3. Language is constitutive of communication construction.

4. The recursive theory has no fixed model of communication, and participants in the communication process do not need to be in agreement with any given theory.

5. Communication makes possible virtual construction of “others” in the mind.

Krippendorff’s theory, consistent with the core idea of Bruno Latour’s sociology of science (in that theories are social constructions), inspired followers such as James Taylor, who helped establish the field of organizational communication; Niklas Luhmann, who influenced the social sciences in general and communication in particular, from a system per- spective; and Pierre Levy, who developed the notion

of collective intelligence in the field of cybercom- munication.

Milton N. Campos

See also Argumentation Theories; Cognitive Theories; Communibiology; Critical Constructivism; Cybernetics; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Language and Communication; Learning and Communication; Palo Alto Group; Phenomenology; Speech Act Theory

Further Readings

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Borel, M. J., Grize, J.-B., & Miéville, D. (1992). Essai de logique naturelle [Essay on natural logic]. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Campos, M. N. (2007). Ecology of meanings: A critical constructivist communication model. Communication Theory, 17, 386–410.

Delia, J. G., O’Keefe, B. J., & O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The constructivist approach to communication. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory (pp. 147–191). New York: Harper & Row.

Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (2nd ed.). Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.

Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle & communications [Natural logic & communications]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: Vol. 1. New York: W. W. Norton.

Krippendorff, K. (1994). A recursive theory of communication. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 78–104). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Piaget, J. (1995). Sociological studies (T. Brown, R. Campbell, N. Emler, M. Ferrari, M. Gribetz, R. Kitchener, et al., Trans.). London: Routledge.

Steffe, L. (2000). Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). L’inscription corporelle de l’esprit. Sciences cognitives et expérience humaine [The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience] (Pierre Lavoie, Trans.; 9th ed.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Routledge.

184 Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication

CONTEXTUAL THEORY OF INTERETHNIC COMMUNICATION

Ethnic diversity has become an increasingly salient and significant social issue in many societies around the world. Even as individuals of differing ethnic backgrounds live and work more closely than ever before, issues of ethnicity continue to invoke intense and often volatile responses. Young Yun Kim’s contextual theory of interethnic com- munication addresses a full spectrum of behaviors displayed by individuals at their grassroots-level encounters with people who are ethnically differ- ent from them.

Applying a psychological perspective, Kim defines interethnic communication as an event, or a series of events, that occurs whenever at least one of the participants sees himself or herself and an interaction partner according to ethnic group cat- egories. In this approach, not all communication encounters between individuals of dissimilar eth- nicities are to be considered interethnic in charac- ter. The term ethnicity is broadly employed as a social category associated with some combinations of common national origin, race, religion, culture, and language. Ethnicity thus differentiates one group from another based on extrinsic ethnic markers such as physical features and speech pat- terns, and intrinsic ethnic markers, including cul- tural norms, beliefs, values, and thought patterns.

This theory grew out of Kim’s research on the cross-cultural adaptation phenomenon of cultural strangers striving for a successful functional and psychological relationship with the host environ- ment. During the 1980s and 1990s, Kim broadened her cross-cultural adaptation research to include the general phenomenon of interethnic communi- cation involving all individuals living in an ethni- cally diverse society, regardless of their native-born or foreign-born backgrounds. Several initial theo- retical papers on interethnic communication were published in the 1990s, followed by a formal pre- sentation of the theory in 2005.

Interethnic Communication as a Dynamic System

Kim’s theory is built on a keen recognition that specific interethnic communication events cannot

be meaningfully understood without taking into account a set of historical, situational, and psycho- logical forces that make up the context for particu- lar interethnic behaviors. Kim conceives the behavior and the context as together co-constituting the basic interethnic communication system, operating simultaneously in a dynamic interplay, each affect- ing the other. Interethnic communication is thus treated not as a specific analytic unit (or variable) but as an entire system in which the behavior and the context are taken together into a fusion. Kim further conceives the interplay between the behav- ior and the context not as a one-directional cause and effect but as what Gregory Bateson described as a back and forth or circular stimulus and response.

Accordingly, the theory offers an integrative model of a basic interethnic communication sys- tem, a hierarchical arrangement that includes the behavior and a progression of three levels of con- text: the communicator at the center, the immedi- ate social situation at the next level, and the larger environment at the macrolevel. The model serves as a matrix of transactions among these levels that can be thought of visually as a set of concentric circles that surround the behavior.

Levels of Context

With the integrative model, the theory places the behavior within three contextual layers: the communicator, the situation, and the environment, thereby offering a comprehensive account for the nature of the relationship between interethnic behavior and key factors of the surrounding con- text. In varying degrees of salience and signifi- cance, all contextual forces are regarded in Kim’s theory to operate in any given interethnic commu- nication event, potentially influencing, and being influenced by, the nature of individual behaviors.

Although these three levels are used to capture the major parts of the process, the outermost envi- ronmental context actually can include many sub- levels, such as international settings, nations, regions, cities, neighborhoods, institutions, organi- zations, and other social entities. Within this orga- nizing framework, the theory examines interethnic communication in its simplest and most general form, a single person communicating. The behavior (or activity) constitutes the stuff of an interethnic

185Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication

communication event, or the “what and how” of the messages sent and received.

At the same time, the conditions that surround the communication behavior comprise the contex- tual layers, or covert factors, that shape, as well as are shaped by, the behavior. Silently present in the context of this single-person interethnic communi- cation system is one or more persons with whom the focal communicator interacts. Temporality also is built into this communication system, even though it is treated as frozen in time for the sake of analysis—rather like a motion picture is stopped so that it can be studied one frame or a set of frames at a time.

The Behavior: Association–Dissociation Continuum

The behavior, the focal point of this contextual theory, consists of a full spectrum of interethnic communication behaviors and actions. Included in this behavior spectrum are not only overtly observ- able verbal and nonverbal encoding activities but also intrapersonal decoding activities taking place within the person and hidden from other commu- nicators. Encoding and decoding behaviors lie along a bipolar continuum between association and dissociation and vary in the extent to which they facilitate mutual understanding, cooperation, and convergence (the coming together of the involved persons, or association) or cause misun- derstanding, competition, and divergence (the com- ing apart of the relationship between interactants, or dissociation). Behaviors seldom do one or the other exclusively but display some degree that may be more or less associative/dissociative.

Based on an extensive array of research find- ings, Kim explains that communicators in inter- ethnic encounters behave associatively when they perceive and respond to others as unique individu- als rather than as representatives of an out-group category; when they focus on others as unique individuals; and when they are attentive and dis- play friendly facial expressions, complementary or mirroring bodily movements, and personalized (rather than impersonal) speech patterns. In con- trast, a communication behavior is characterized as dissociative when it is based on a categorical, stereotypical, and depersonalized perception that accentuates differences. Dissociative behaviors

also include many forms of divergent verbal and nonverbal behaviors that indicate psychological distance and emotional intensity, from subtle expressions to blatantly dehumanizing name-calling, ethnic jokes, and hate speeches. Nonverbally, a communicator acts dissociatively through a range of behaviors, from subtle facial, vocal, and bodily expressions of lack of interest, disrespect, arro- gance, and anger to more intense expressions of hatred and aggression, such as rioting and acts of violence.

The Communicator

Associative/dissociative interethnic communica- tion behaviors are directly linked to the internal characteristics of the communicator. Incorporating various pertinent theoretical ideas and related research findings in the literature, the theory presents two communicator factors: (1) identity inclusivity/exclusivity and (2) identity security/ insecurity. The theory argues that, as functionally interrelated but conceptually distinct concepts, these identity orientations are significantly and reciprocally linked to an individual’s associative/ dissociative interethnic behavior.

Identity inclusivity/exclusivity refers to the ten- dency of individuals to categorize themselves and others as in-group or out-group members. Inclusive identity orientation serves as a cognitive and moti- vational basis of associative behavior, whereas exclusive identity orientation is closely linked to a more rigid differentiation of oneself from ethnically dissimilar others. A substantial body of studies sup- ports this theoretical claim. In interviews with Native Americans throughout Oklahoma, for instance, Kim and her coauthors found that those interviewees whose identity orientations were more inclusive (or less exclusive) were more actively engaged in interpersonal relationships with non- Indian acquaintances and friends. These interview- ees also reported greater psychological health and functional fitness with respect to American society at large.

Identity security/insecurity is reflected in the degree of self-confidence and the sense of self-efficacy. The level of identity security indicates an individual’s overall sense of self-confidence, or internal strength, with which to react to stressful situations with composure and clear and rational thinking. Identity

186 Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication

security, as such, is a kind of personal resource that accords the capacity to empathize with others and to be creative in responding to impending problems. Identity security is also expressed in a sense of self-assuredness and positive attitudes toward others. In comparison, identity insecurity often manifests itself in feelings of inferiority or defensiveness when interacting with ethnically dissimilar others.

The Situation

Next to the communicator layer is the situa- tional layer in which an interethnic encounter takes place. The theory identifies three key situa- tional factors as being significant to understanding the nature of the communicator’s interethnic behavior: (1) ethnic proximity/distance; (2) shared/ separate goal structure; and (3) personal network integration/segregation.

Ethnic proximity/distance refers to the level of homogeneity or heterogeneity between the interac- tants. This situational factor arises from the degree of extrinsic ethnic markers, such as physical fea- tures and speech accents, and from the degree of compatibility or incompatibility stemming from intrinsic ethnic markers such as internalized beliefs and values associated with a specific ethnic group. The theory argues that ethnic proximity encour- ages associative behaviors, whereas ethnic distance increases psychological distance between the inter- actants and keeps them from noticing their under- lying similarities.

Shared/separate goal structure is defined as the extent to which the communicators come together with mutuality of interests. Shared goals foster and are fostered by associative behaviors and coopera- tive relationships between the involved parties. In contrast, communicators who see in the other interactant(s) few shared goals are less likely to be motivated to engage in associative behaviors. In ethnically diverse athletic teams, for instance, team members with a strong commitment to the collec- tive goal of achieving a winning season tend to subsume their ethnic group interests more will- ingly to those of the team.

Personal network integration is identified in the theory as having a significant relevance to interethnic behavior. Personal network, also referred to by net- work analysts as interpersonal network, egocentric

network, and personal community, is largely a prod- uct of voluntary association. Accordingly, the ethnic composition of a given communicator’s personal network is indicative of the extent to which he or she has, or has not, already participated in associative activities with ethnically dissimilar others. Hence, the theory argues that communicators whose per- sonal networks are already more integrated are likely to act more associatively in dealing with other ethnically dissimilar others.

The Environment

Surrounding the situational contextual layer is the environment, the outer social milieu, which is comprised of multiple sublevels as described ear- lier in this entry. Directly or indirectly, strongly or weakly, certain conditions of each environmental layer potentially influence, and are influenced by, the associative–dissociative interethnic behavior of the individual communicator. The theory identifies three factors of the environment: (1) institutional equity/inequity, (2) in-group strength, and (3) environmental stress.

Institutional equity/inequity addresses issues of fairness and justice. Through the activities of social comparison, individual communicators are less likely to act associatively if they perceive, correctly or not, some form of unfair rules or practices directed against their own ethnic group. Many of the contemporary incidents of institutional inequity can be traced to the history of subjugation of one ethnic group by another in various forms, including slavery and colonization. Societies such as the United States have undergone a significant transfor- mation toward greater institutional equity, thereby rendering a substantial increase over time in inter- ethnic associations across ethnic boundaries.

Interethnic behaviors are further linked to eth- nic group strength. The overall strength of an eth- nic group is closely tied to objective properties such as its relative size, economic resources, and institutional and organizational strengths. Individuals in a large, active, and well-organized ethnic community (such as the Cuban American community in Florida) are more likely to maintain ethnic relational ties than to reach out actively to individuals outside their ethnic community. Conversely, an individual whose ethnic community is small and less institutionalized tends to be more

187Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication

motivated to associate himself or herself with out- group members.

The third environmental factor, environmental stress, pertains to the tension in an organization, community, or society at large. Interethnic tension is also likely to increase when the environment is under duress because of events that are linked to a particular out-group. Such was the case when vio- lent or otherwise dissociative acts increased against individuals of Middle Eastern origins following the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. Dissociative behaviors also tend to increase when a society undergoes certain challenging circumstances caused by economic hardship, shortage of resources, or involvement in an international crisis.

Theorems

As outlined above, Kim’s theory identifies eight contextual factors of the communicator, the situa- tion, and the environment as being significant to understanding interethnic behavior. Conversely, the theory argues that specific associative or dis- sociative interethnic behaviors can influence the nature of the eight contextual factors. Linking each of the contextual factors to associative/dissociative behavior in a reciprocal functional relationship, the theory proposes eight testable theorems.

Theorems 1 and 2 propose a profile of a com- municator who is likely to act more associatively as someone with a more inclusive and secure iden- tity orientation. These two theorems further pre- dict that a communicator who acts associatively is likely to find his or her identity orientation becom- ing more inclusive and secure.

Addressing three situational factors, Theorems 3 through 5 predict that interethnic behavior is likely to be more associative when the communication situation created by the communicator and the other interactant(s) presents greater ethnic proxim- ity (similarity and compatibility) and shared goals (common interests) and when the communicator’s existing personal network is ethnically more inte- grated. Conversely, these three theorems suggest that the same situational factors of cultural prox- imity, shared goal structure, and integrated per- sonal network can be fostered through associative behaviors.

Theorems 6 through 8 posit that the communi- cator is likely to behave more associatively when

the larger environment offers him or her a system of law, rules, policies, and practices that are, or are perceived to be, more equitable; when the commu- nicator’s own ethnic group is smaller in size and weaker in collective strength; and when the rele- vant environment is calmer and more prosperous. At the same time, the theorems also predict that, directly or indirectly, associative behaviors of indi- vidual communicators can help foster greater fair- ness for all parties involved; counter potentially adversarial conditions stemming from unequal strengths of the ethnic groups involved; and miti- gate the potential dissociative impact of serious economic, political, or social challenges confront- ing the surrounding environment on the intereth- nic relations between individuals.

The Theory and the Reality

In addition to the generalizable patterns of behavior–context relationships identified in the eight theorems, the theory provides a broadly based conceptual roadmap that can guide case studies of specific interethnic communication events. The theory offers an integrative analytic framework with which to survey the entire field of behavior– context interface in a given case, directing an ana- lyst’s attention to the particularities of behavioral and contextual forces operating in a given intereth- nic event or a series of related events.

The theory allows that each event presents a unique circumstance in which some factors may be of greater relevance and play a more prominent role than others. Once all the constituent dimen- sions and factors are identified, the analyst may zero in on those factors that are most salient and significant to understanding and explaining that event. Even a single factor may be so powerful as to overshadow every other force operating in a given encounter. Such would be the case when two individuals respond to an identical set of situa- tional and environmental conditions in vastly dif- ferent manners or when commitment to a shared goal (a situational factor) is so strong that interac- tants are able to overcome many of the adversarial environmental factors and manage to engage in associative behaviors and activities.

For everyday practitioners of interethnic com- munication, the systemic conception of interethnic communication depicted in this theory suggests

188 Convergence Theory

that change in the status quo in interethnic rela- tions can be initiated at any level. Those who desire change may begin by looking inwardly and reflecting on the extent of inclusiveness and secu- rity in their own sense of who they are and how they orient themselves to ethnically dissimilar oth- ers. By practicing associative behaviors at the indi- vidual level, they may work to improve the quality of interethnic relations in organizations and com- munities around us. They may further anticipate that, by creating a situation around them in which all involved parties see the mutuality of their respective interests and aspirations, they can engen- der a strong sense of community and active inter- personal associations that transcend ethnic categories.

Ultimately, the contextual theory of interethnic communication speaks to the real possibility that a single communicator can make a difference for all others involved in an interethnic encounter. When sufficiently multiplied by many others, a communi- cator’s behavior can resonate broadly to help shape the quality of interethnic communication in a given neighborhood, organization, community, society, and beyond. It is this grassroots-level real- ity of individual communicators that the theory illuminates in its full complexity.

Young Yun Kim

See also Accommodation Theory; Actor–Network Theory; Communication Theory of Identity; Cross- Cultural Adaptation Theory; Culture and Communication; Intercultural Communication Theories; Interracial Communication; Self- Categorization Theory; Social Identity Theory; System Theory

Further Readings

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Kim, Y. Y. (1978). Inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic communication. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 4(1), 53–68.

Kim, Y. Y. (1986). Understanding the social context of intergroup communication: A personal network theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 86–95). London: Edward Arnold.

Kim, Y. Y. (1989). Explaining interethnic conflict: An interdisciplinary overview. In J. Gittler (Ed.), Annual

review of conflict knowledge and conflict resolution: Vol. 1 (pp. 101–125). New York: Garland.

Kim, Y. Y. (1997). The context-behavior interface in interethnic communication. In J. Owen (Ed.), Context and communication behavior (pp. 261–291). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Kim, Y. Y. (1999). Unum and Pluribus: Ideological underpinnings of interethnic communication in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 591–611.

Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Unum vs. Pluribus: Ideology and differing academic conceptions of ethnic identity. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 26 (pp. 298–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Association and dissociation: A contextual theory of interethnic communication. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 323–349). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y. Y., Lujan, P., & Dixon, L. (1998). “I can walk both ways”: Identity integration of American Indians in Oklahoma. Human Communication Research, 25, 252–274.

CONVERGENCE THEORY

The convergence theory of communication was developed in 1979 by D. Lawrence Kincaid to pro- vide a general model of communication that would overcome the criticisms and shortcomings of pre- vailing models, especially information transmis- sion models such as the one used in Shannon and Weaver’s mathematical theory of communication. The model represented communication as (a) a process rather than a single action; (b) sharing or exchange of information rather than one-way transmission; (c) two or more participants in dia- logue; (d) a means to clarify the confusion between information, knowledge, messages, symbols, and meaning; and (e) a self-correcting feedback pro- cess, defined dynamically as a diminishing series of corrections that enable communicators to con- verge on a goal. The theoretical implications of the convergence model became readily apparent, lead- ing to theoretical propositions that could be tested empirically. It also became apparent that conver- gence, the general principle underlying the model, is central to many specific theories found in the field of communication.

189Convergence Theory

Convergence is often mistakenly equated with consensus. Convergence is movement toward one point, toward another communicator, toward a common interest, and toward greater uniformity, never quite reaching that point. It is assumed, for example, that no two people can ever reach the same meaning for information, only a greater degree of similarity. In communication, the goal of this feedback process is mutual understanding, a reduction in the set of all possible individual understandings to a more limited one that is shared.

The Convergence Model

The latest version of the convergence model depicts a cyclical, iterative process involving at least two participants. Participants are connected by sharing the same information with one another. Information, lying at the central core of the model, is physical—something endowed with form. Sound waves created by the vocal chords, text messages on paper or sand, patterns on a television moni- tor, tone of voice, body language and position, and so forth are physical phenomena and hence potentially sources of information for communi- cation. Limiting the concept of information to its physical manifestation makes it possible to treat it as the means by which thoughts and meaning are expressed and shared with others. Thoughts and meaning are defined purely as cognitive phenom- ena, which are psychological. The psychological realities toward which communicators converge consist of perceptions, interpretations, under- standings, and beliefs. Emotional responses to information can affect each one of these cognitive processes. The relationship formed between participants by sharing information is social. Information is created and/or shared by the actions of two or more participants, groups, orga- nizations, or cultures engaged in intergroup, inter- organizational, and intercultural communication. The collective action of individuals, including the coordinated actions required for communication itself, is also a source of information.

Power—the capacity to exercise control over others—is not an inherent part of communica- tion per se but rather an attribute of the rela- tionship between participants. To have an effect on communication, power must first be made

apparent by means of information. Physical size, posture, tone of voice, clothing, titles, signs of wealth, and so forth provide information about the respective power of each participant. Power can also be communicated by overt threats of positive and negative sanctions, and ultimately by physical action (force) itself. Information that reflects power can also induce an emotional response, such as respect or fear, which in turn is expected to influence the com- munication process, increasing the likelihood that the position of the one with more power will be accepted.

In 2002, Kincaid introduced an extended model that allowed for divergence and conflict as well as convergence and cooperation. Communication as convergence or divergence consists of six phases: (1) a scene-setting phase that creates an informa- tionally closed system for dialogue; (2) a buildup phase leading to final positions taken within a common frame of reference (mutual understand- ing); and (3) a resolution phase, in which partici- pants mutually agree on a common position they trust each other to implement. Mutual understand- ing helps to ensure each participant’s trustworthi- ness, but if flaws are revealed in the resolution stage, mistrust can arise and throw participants back into a new buildup phase with an increased possibility of (4) a climax phase, when emotion and reason do not lead to changes in position and mutual understanding, leading to (5) a conflict phase, in which neither participant will change and hence must resort to their threatened fallback posi- tions. In the final (6) resolution phase, either coop- eration or conflict is implemented. If participants agree on a common position that they can trust each other to implement, then the outcome will be cooperation.

Following this new model, communication is defined as a process in which two or more partici- pants share information and converge toward a state of greater mutual understanding and agree- ment leading to cooperation or, as explained later in this entry, diverge toward a state of incompati- ble viewpoints and disagreement, leading to con- flict. Cooperation requires some minimal level of mutual understanding and agreement. Even when conflict occurs, communication has still created a state of greater mutual understanding of each par- ticipant’s point of view.

190 Convergence Theory

Convergence Theory at the Aggregate Level of Analysis

The most important principle of semantics is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between symbolic information and its meaning. If that were the case, a new symbol would be required for every different circumstance in which communica- tion occurs. There are no perfectly equivalent cir- cumstances, only variety. Meaning is possible because of variation, and that variation includes silence and the nonoccurrence of other symbols (e.g., “no” instead of “yes” or “maybe”). This semantic principle implies that information is a physical difference (pattern) that affects uncer- tainty in a situation in which a choice exists among a set of alternatives. When uncertainty is too high to permit one to decide (interpret or understand), then additional information is sought. This feed- back process reduces the initial levels of uncer- tainty regarding each participant’s interpretation and understanding, leading to an increased level of mutual understanding.

When the convergence model is applied at the aggregate level of analysis to groups, organizations, and cultures, then theoretical propositions can be proposed that use formulas for statistical averages and variances. Here the theory predicts that when messages constructed with multiple concepts are shared, the average position of each concept will converge on the statistical center. Thus, the associa- tion of concepts in a message leads to the mutual convergence of all concepts toward one another. The average position of a set of measured concepts of two or more local subcultures that share infor- mation is expected to converge over time toward a global mean. This hypothesis was tested by measur- ing the average difference in the multidimensional space of Eastern and Western cultural values (e.g., individual freedom, saving face, happiness, success) of Korean immigrants who had lived in Hawaii from 1 to 15 years. During this period, a statistical measure of meaning of successive Korean immi- grant cohorts converged toward that of the host culture in the form of damped harmonic motion, which is a statistical concept related to changes in variation. The results were also expressed mathe- matically as a convergence toward a state of greater uniformity (less diversity) of values, as measured by the reduction in the statistical variance.

This work led to the following two comple- mentary convergence theorems for the aggregate level of analysis of communication in social net- works, groups, organizations, and subcultures in a population:

Theorem 1: In a relatively closed social system in which communication among members is unrestricted, the system as a whole will tend to converge over time toward a state of greater cultural uniformity.

Theorem 2: In a relatively closed social system in which communication among members is restricted, the system as a whole will tend to diverge over time toward a state of greater cultural diversity.

Homogeneity of information leads to uniformity of belief and behavior; heterogeneity leads to diver- sity. For initially diverse subgroups who share information within a relatively bounded social sys- tem, the statistical variance around the mean of a continuous measure is expected to decrease over time, as the Korean immigrant case confirmed. If a boundary is imposed between two groups (restrict- ing information sharing), then the variance of the system as a whole is expected to increase over time (toward greater diversity) and simultaneously decrease within each subculture around its local mean. Boundaries can be created by the lack of interpersonal contact (social network clustering), by lack of a common language, by the use of differ- ent channels of mass media, and by geographical barriers. Conversely, with less restricted informa- tion sharing, diversity decreases over time (hence, uniformity increases).

In 1983, before the theorems were formally pro- posed, Everett Rogers and Kincaid measured the diversity of contraceptive behavior among women in 24 Korean villages. Because contraceptive prac- tice is a discrete behavior, it was possible to calcu- late the percentage of adoption of each contraceptive method within the relatively bounded social net- works of each village and then compute the aver- age degree of diversity–uniformity. Surprisingly, the most popular method of birth control varied across the 24 villages: Some were predominantly oral-pill villages, others IUD villages, others con- dom villages, and so forth. In other words, the distribution of behavior within each village’s social network appeared as if it had been a collective

191Conversational Constraints Theory

decision rather than the sum of many individual choices. The average uniformity–diversity was positively correlated with the degree of intercon- nectedness of the social networks within the vil- lage, a measure of the degree of restriction of information flow and absence of bounded clusters. Villages with less connected communication net- works had a flatter, more diverse distribution of behavior; those with more densely connected net- works had a narrower, more uniform distribution, which is characteristic of a prevailing social norm.

Bounded Normative Influence

The two convergence theorems are valid because of the nature of information processing and the role played by boundaries. When the boundary of a group expands to include new members with dif- ferent points of view, diversity increases. When people who disagree leave, uniformity among those who remain automatically increases. At the same time, the group becomes more diverse with respect to outsiders. This convergence process is enhanced by bounded normative influence—the tendency of social norms to influence behavior within relatively bounded local subgroups of a social system rather than in the system as a whole. This cultural and social network principle resolves the paradox of how innovation (a new minority position) can sur- vive the social pressure of the majority and eventu- ally grow to become the new majority: subgroups insulate themselves by forming boundaries within which they are the majority, and they then expand by recruiting new members from the outside.

Bounded normative influence is evident in Gerry Mackie’s explanation of how the deeply embedded social norm of women’s foot binding in China was totally overcome in one generation at the begin- ning of the 19th century by the organization of cohesive, local societies in which families pledged to raise girls with natural feet and have their sons marry only girls with natural feet. In a recent network analysis of the 30-year decline of smoking in the United States, Nickolas Christakis and James Fowler discovered that while smoking declined overall, the size of clusters of those who continued to smoke remained the same across time (appearing progressively in the periphery of social networks), suggesting that clusters of connected people were quitting together. In their recent book

The Big Sort, Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing described the profound ideological clustering and polarization that has been taking place in the United States over the past 30 years as a result of geographical mobility to places of like-minded people, a voluntary narrowing of exposure to cable television channels and Internet sites, and a growing unwillingness of people to be exposed to contrary points of view. All three societal changes can be explained by—and could have been pre- dicted by—the two basic theorems of the conver- gence theory of communication.

D. Lawrence Kincaid

See also Cybernetics; Information Theory; Semiotics and Semiology; Symbolic Convergence Theory; System Theory

Further Readings

Barnett, G. A., & Kincaid, D. L. (1983). Cultural convergence: A mathematical theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives: Vol. VII. International and intercultural communication annual (pp. 171–194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kincaid, D. L. (1988). The convergence theory of communication: Its implications for intercultural communication. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on international communication: Vol. XII. International and intercultural annual (pp. 280–298). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kincaid, D. L. (2002). Drama, emotion, and cultural convergence. Communication Theory, 12, 136–152.

Kincaid, D. L. (2004). From innovation to social norm: Bounded normative influence. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 37–57.

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.

Woelfel, J., & Fink, E. L. (1980). The measurement of communication processes: Galileo theory and method. New York: Academic Press.

CONVERSATIONAL CONSTRAINTS THEORY

Culture-based conversational constraints theory, developed by Min-Sun Kim and her colleagues,

192 Conversational Constraints Theory

explains why people from different cultures say what they say. In contrast with mostly descriptive research on cross-cultural strategy choices, the major goal of this research program has been to understand, from a goals perspective, why a par- ticular conversational strategy is chosen cross- culturally. This theory derives, in part, from research on metagoals in interpersonal communi- cation contexts. However, the focus of the culture- based conversational constraints theory has been to understand the cognitive underpinnings of mes- sage production across cultures.

Most cross-cultural studies explain away the stereotypical communication differences as some “cultural” difference, such as being Asian or being American. The influence of norms, customs, and rules can be applied only according to a given situation and thus has limited explanatory power. The central focus of conversational constraints relates not to what is said but rather to how what is said is to be said. Kim proposes the existence of five interactional concerns (i.e., conversational constraints) that are assumed to guide message production: (1) concern for clarity, (2) concern for minimizing imposition, (3) concern for avoiding damage to the hearer’s feelings, (4) concern for avoiding negative evaluation, and (5) concern for effectiveness. Although this line of research does not directly assess message production, a likeli- hood-of-use measure is usually included that is intended to capture a portion of individuals’ implicit theories of interaction goals.

Genesis of Culture-Based Conversational Constraints

As people pursue interaction goals such as gaining compliance, seeking information, or altering rela- tionships, they generate messages within a variety of constraints. In conversation, actors face con- straints on how they speak. This is the backdrop against which people pursue their conversational goals. These higher-level constraints have been named supergoals, cross-situational goals, super- maxims, metastrategies, metagoals, metaplans, ritual-constraints, and sociopragmatic interac- tional principles. The main implication is that, regardless of one’s interaction goal(s), there exist higher-level concerns regarding how one will achieve the goal(s).

Researchers from communication, artificial intelligence, psychology, linguistics, and other related fields have suggested two major dimen- sions that may serve as global constraints in conversational and planning situations— appropriateness and effectiveness. In the past, several authors have suggested similar dualities that are motivating forces in communication: being clear and being polite, concern for clarity and concern with support, directness and polite- ness, and efficiency and social appropriateness. Grice put forward the maxim of manner in the use of language (e.g., be clear, be brief, try to avoid obscurity), which can be seen as offering guidelines for direct communication. Brown and Levinson also posit such wants as (a) the want to be efficient or indicate urgency and (b) the want to maintain the hearer’s face to some degree.

Based on the above literature, most theorists in interpersonal communication seem to have accepted, either implicitly or explicitly, the impor- tance of appropriateness and effectiveness (or efficiency) in defining communication compe- tence. The notion of social appropriateness as a communication constraint, however, presupposes some accepted standards of what constitutes appropriate communication performance. It inher- ently requires a culturally homogeneous commu- nity. Thus, appropriateness runs the risk of being meaningless in cross-cultural compari- sons. When people do not share social conven- tions, their notions of appropriateness are different. For instance, a use of a request strat- egy by a person from one culture, where the choice would be appropriate, may be considered inappropriate when used with a person from another culture.

Contents of Culture-Based Conversational Constraints

Kim proposed a set of culture-based conversa- tional constraints to account for the use of differ- ent conversational strategies in different cultures. The previous set of two interactive constraints (i.e., social appropriateness and efficiency) is bro- ken down into three more specific social-relational categories (imposition, other’s feelings, and nega- tive evaluation). Two other task-related constraints are added (clarity and effectiveness). This section

193Conversational Constraints Theory

defines each dimension (see Figure 1) in the con- text of requesting behavior.

Clarity

Clarity is defined as the likelihood of an utter- ance’s making one’s intention clear and explicit. Clarity is discussed frequently in the literature on conversation. For instance, Grice’s maxim of man- ner (e.g., be clear, be brief, avoid obscurity) can be seen as a guideline for clear communication. The current typology of request strategies varies on a clarity dimension. If one’s primary goal is to request an action, direct imperatives (e.g., “Repay the loan” or “Lend me your book”) make the speaker’s illocutionary point—his or her intent— explicit. The hint strategy—the other end of the continuum—should be least clear, since clarity of intent is not necessarily derivable from the literal meaning of the utterances.

Minimizing Imposition

This dimension pertains to the degree to which an utterance avoids imposing on the hearer’s

autonomy or interfering with the hearer’s freedom of action. This type of concern has been referred to in more abstract terms as negative politeness or deference politeness. What is desired is to avoid imposing on others. Concern for minimizing imposition has primarily been conceived as a means of protecting the hearer’s face. Several authors argue that in the Western world, the notion of politeness usually is associated with showing deference by not expecting the hearer’s cooperation and by leaving the hearer the option of noncompliance. While the salience of this con- straint might differ across cultures, prior research confirms the importance of minimizing imposition in many cultures.

Consideration for the Other’s Feelings

When making a request, people also may con- sider how their projected action will affect the hearer’s feelings. “Concern for the other’s feel- ings” relates to the speaker’s perceived obliga- tion to help the hearer claim and sustain a positive self-image. The degree to which a strat- egy shows a consideration for the hearer’s

Concern for clarity

1. In this situation, I feel it is very important to make my point as clearly and directly as possible. 2. In this situation, I want to directly come to the point while conveying my message.

Concern for not hurting the other’s feelings

1. In this situation, I feel it is very important to avoid hurting the other’s feelings. 2. In this situation, being considerate toward the other’s feelings is a major concern to me.

Concern for nonimposition

1. In this situation, it is very important not to intrude on the other person. 2. In this situation, it is very important to avoid inconveniencing the other.

Concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer

1. In this situation, it is very important that the other person does not see me in a negative light. 2. In this situation, it is very important that my message does not cause the other person to dislike me.

Concern for effectiveness

1. In this situation, it is very important to get the other person to do what I want. 2. In this situation, making the other person comply with my request is very important.

Figure 1 List of Culture-Based Conversational Constraints: Scale Items

Source: Kim, M. S. (1992). Cross-cultural variations in implicit theories of requesting behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

194 Conversational Constraints Theory

feelings has been proposed under various labels, including positive face, identity goals, and con- cern with support. Direct statements with a lack of request mitigation (e.g., “Do X!”) may risk a higher chance of hurting the other’s feelings than hints that communicate the implicit message that the speaker is not concerned about the relation- ship but only with accomplishing the instrumen- tal outcome.

Risking Disapproval for Self

This dimension represents the desire to avoid negative evaluation by the conversational partner. This constraint is consistent with Brown and Levinson’s notion of a speaker’s desire to save his or her own positive face. In recent years, several authors have suggested similar interactive con- straints in communication, including impression- management goals and approval-seeking strategies. The direct-statement strategy potentially could risk devaluation for self since it is more demanding than the hint strategy.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is another major dimension that influences choice of conversational tactics and strategies. If speakers undertake communicative acts to accomplish a primary goal, then it seems likely that they are concerned with whether that goal will be accomplished. While effectiveness alone is not a sufficient condition of competence, it nonetheless indicates the importance of this con- straint in social interaction.

Cultural Variability in Perceived Importance of Constraints

Kim’s conversational-constraints studies seek to generate knowledge about the cultural precursors of conversational concerns, in contrast to situa- tional and individual difference predictors that have been the focus of most previous studies. Hence her research program is distinguished by its use of multiple-culture samples. Some of the research treats cultural membership as the inde- pendent variable and the importance of the con- straints as the dependent variables.

A major issue that Kim and her colleagues have pursued involves linking the differences

between individualist and collectivist communi- cation styles to the importance of the conversa- tional constraints. Individualism–collectivism has been considered the single most important dimen- sion of cultural difference in social behavior. Kim has investigated how cultural groups may differ in the structure and content of their perceptions about preferred communication behavior, focus- ing on the importance attached to interactive concerns in conversation. The results indicate that the dimension of individualism–collectivism (as operationalized by nationality) is systemati- cally related to the perceived importance of clar- ity, avoiding hurting the hearer’s feelings, and minimizing imposition. For example, U.S. Americans perceive clearer tactics as more effec- tive, whereas Koreans believe just the opposite. Elsewhere, Kim and her colleagues have attempted to trace the effects of cultural membership from self-concept variables through judgments of con- straint importance.

Claims of cultural distinctions between East Asians and U.S. Americans on relationship orien- tation versus task orientation abound in the litera- ture. This line of research shows that the popular claims regarding relationship orientation (East Asian) versus task orientation (U.S. American) in verbal styles may in fact be grounded in shared cognitive knowledge about communication behav- ior. Later, self-construal, how we depict ourselves, has been introduced into the research to account for both the between- and within-culture variation in the expression of communication behavior. By the use of this individual-level approach to cross- cultural differences in conjunction with the prior culture-level approach, hypotheses can be exam- ined both intraculturally and cross-culturally so that explanatory variables may be tested at two levels.

This theory extends our knowledge about what kinds of general conversational constraints shape peoples’ beliefs concerning competent behavior. Because goals arise from culture and self-concept, the model highlights the goal formation portion of the message-production process. In addition, because conversational constraints limit message choice prior to enactment, the model speaks to the planning stage as well.

Conversational constraints are essentially cog- nitive generators of tactical preferences. Without

195Conversation Analysis

these overarching concerns, people’s choice of tactics would appear as isolated entities without connection to the rest of their knowledge. The conversational constraints seem self-evident to native speakers but, in fact, are culturally specific, which helps to explain culture’s effect on conver- sational behavior in different societies. The cur- rent theory, despite its obvious need of further testing and theoretical refinement, provides a theoretical framework that can systematically explain how the interactive constraints guide the cultural preference of communication tactics and the perceptions of intercultural communicative competence.

The main practical implication of the theory is that when speakers of different cultural back- grounds interact, the problems that develop in communication can be accounted for by the salience of global goals or constraints in conversa- tion. Given that global constraints contribute to consistent performances across different contexts, the concept of the different restraining forces of various conversational constraints can provide a useful framework for explaining intercultural communication and misunderstandings.

Min-Sun Kim

See also Competence Theories

Further Readings

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication (pp. 7–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, M.-S. (1992). Cross-cultural variations in implicit theories of requesting behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Kim, M.-S. (1993). Culture-based conversational constraints in explaining cross-cultural strategic competence. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 132–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kim, M.-S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128–151.

Kim, M.-S. (1995). Toward a theory of conversational constraints. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 148–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, M.-S. (2004). Culture-based conversational constraints theory: Individual- and culture-level analyses. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 93–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, M.-S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. J. (1996). Individual- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 29–49.

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Conversation analysis (CA), initially developed by Harvey Sacks with Emanuel Schegloff, David Sudnow, and others, seeks to provide a descrip- tive study of human conduct via empirical data of naturally occurring interaction. CA attempts to provide an approach to investigating the sequential nature of social action from the per- spective of the participants’ display of methods and procedures utilized in the organization of their interaction. From its inception in the early 1960s, CA has developed a set of concerns cen- tered on the observable features of interaction as they arise in a range of circumstances and situa- tions and for undertaking various actions via talk. While originally presented as a means of extending sociological analysis, CA, as an approach to activity, has grown to be incorpo- rated into numerous fields and explorations regarding human communication.

Early Development

Harvey Sacks initiated the idea of CA while a graduate student with Emanuel Schegloff and David Sudnow in the Sociology Department at the University of California, Berkeley. All three were students of Erving Goffman, who was developing his personal approach to examining the everyday social activities of individuals in an attempt to describe what he called the interaction order. Sacks and Schegloff were seeking to develop a new way, independent of then current sociological methods, for conceptualizing and approaching social activity. In so doing, they avoided the reliance on commonly employed sociological

196 Conversation Analysis

concepts (e.g., culture, norms, organizations, or states) to provide means of describing and explain- ing data. Rather, they sought an approach rooted in the observable displays of what individuals do during interaction to make their understandings of the activity in which they were involved known to participants.

Sacks became a fellow at the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center in 1963. As part of the proce- dure of handling incoming helpline phone calls, the center routinely made audio recordings of these calls. These materials provided a set of naturally occurring data that Sacks could examine. While Sacks was not initially interested in studying con- versation, the recorded phone calls provided a means to analytically investigate social action as undertaken via the interaction of caller and coun- selor. The recent developments of recording tech- nology provided the ability to capture natural instances of human conduct without the direct intervention of the researcher to filter observations, such as through note taking. This noninterference of the analyst became one of the assumptions of CA data collection.

Even though the initial set of recordings was produced in an institutional setting (the Suicide Prevention Center), the focus was on the observ- able elements of conversation practice generally rather than on any situated features of the interac- tion. While these recordings provided the initial corpus from which Sacks drew his material as he developed his lectures on CA, the data set quickly grew to include instances of conversation that were not institutionally connected. These data allowed for the development of arguments regard- ing the general use of conversational devices (such as turn taking and sequential organization) across situations rather than in one particular institu- tional setting. As a faculty member, Sacks attracted several students, such as Gail Jefferson, Anita Pomerantz, and Jim Schenkein, among others, with whom (in addition to Schegloff) he would develop initial concepts of conversational practice and who would be among those carrying on Sacks’s research tradition following his early death in a traffic accident in 1975.

Goffman’s work investigating the ritual and social order of face-to-face interaction was one early influence on the development of CA as a sociological approach. Goffman created unique

and informative descriptions of routine activity that illustrated the social, rather than individual, organization of our interactions. For Goffman, the organization of activity and interaction was not independent of situation; the social organization provided a framework from which to examine situations and interactions within. Similarly eth- nomethodology, developed by Harold Garfinkel, influenced the initial conceptions of CA. Ethnomethodology provided a specific approach to the investigation of the lived social world by problematizing the commonsense reasoning employed by individuals as they engage in their routine, day-to-day activities. In essence, eth- nomethodology sought to illustrate how social actors’ reliance on the procedures of social norms served as the manifestation of their understandings of those norms.

Basic Assumptions

As an investigation into human activity, CA seeks to discover and describe the routine competencies relied on by individuals to manage and display their understandings of the moment during inter- action. It tries to develop accounts for how participants produce their own contributions and indicate recognition and understanding of contri- butions by others. As joint activity, interaction requires the coordination of participants to place their respective turns in a fitting and understand- able manner relative to one another. Consequently, each turn of talk stands in relation to its prior turn, so that a subsequent turn may be observed as rec- ognizing and responding to it, based on its display. CA examines the sequential nature of how partici- pants display their ongoing comprehension of the interaction by considering the observable features of interaction to which participants orient them- selves during sequences of talk. Features high- lighted by participants during their interaction become examinable by the analyst.

Researcher emphasis on those features that par- ticipants display themselves highlights an impor- tant facet in the design and undertaking of CA work. Unlike approaches that make use of theo- retical concepts and orientations to help unpack and understand the activities in which people engage and organize their social worlds, CA eschews theoretical constructs that do not

197Conversation Analysis

originate in the interactional realm under investi- gation. That is, CA does not promote or develop generalizable theoretical explanations for observed phenomena beyond (a) those concepts and explanations developed from prior empirical investigation into talk-in-interaction and (b) the commonplace understandings of how interaction works based on our engagement as conversational practitioners. Thus, analyst-selected categories of description are not used to identify or explain the undertakings within interactions; instead, the observable details indicated by participants as rel- evant to the present engagement in and under- standing of the interaction are utilized as necessary and useful for comprehending the current moment. For example, from within the CA approach, the concept of power is not used as an explanatory concept to account for the unfolding of interac- tion among participants unless those involved display their orientation to that issue for the man- agement of the unfolding interaction.

Topics of Investigation

Four basic topics represent the fundamental con- cerns of CA: membership categorization, turn design, turn taking, and sequential organization.

Membership Categorization

Membership categorization was an early focus of Sacks in his development of CA. Membership categories refers to the social types people may use to classify and describe one another. These include such things as the occupation a person may hold, such as teacher, doctor, secretary; a relationship one may have to another, such as mother, friend, coworker; and general types used to distinguish some aspect of a group, such as nerd, fan, or jock. Categories are consequential for interaction, for people design their contributions in part based on the categories into which they place their partici- pants and themselves.

Participants use categories as a way to provide understandings about the various activities, rights, responsibilities, motives, and competencies that they attach to members of categories. This informa- tion is consequential for how one designs turns of talk, the selection of recipients for the talk, and for interpretations of the recipient’s talk. For example,

a supervising physician may introduce himself or herself to a patient who has been examined by an intern in a way that shows the intern as an equal. Such a display may be taken to indicate the physi- cian’s assumption that interns are concerned about maintaining their authority in front of patients.

Turn Design

A second key topic for CA is the design of turns of talk. Turns are highly fluid creations, having no set size, topic, form, or order among speakers. Turns can be constructed out of many different types of units, from complete sentences to individual words or even sounds. The syntactic structure of a turn does not define the talk as a turn by the current speaker. Speakers select the form of a turn to help undertake the projected action (e.g., telling a joke). Given that turns are unpredictable in length or com- position, a question arises as to how listeners know when a speaker is about to complete his or her turn of talk. Complicating matters is that, overall, a rule participants orient themselves to during talk is that one person speaks at a time. While the overlap of turns of talk of speakers is fairly common, these overlaps tend to be brief moments; additional speakers will stop speaking so that only one contin- ues. In addition, analysts note that there are rela- tively minimal gaps and overlaps at points of speaker change.

Consequently, there must be ways that partici- pants can determine when a current speaker will end his or her turn of talk. These points of possi- ble completion for the current speaker, places the turn could be projected to end—even if it does not end at any one of them—are referred to as transi- tion relevance places. Participants in interaction can note these upcoming places in a speaker’s turn as a spot at which they could begin speaking if the speaker ends. This matters for the creation of turns; for example, if a speaker wishes to take a long turn of uninterrupted talk, perhaps to tell a story, the speaker will need to forestall listeners from beginning a turn of talk at a transition rele- vance point by indicating a desire for an extended turn. In such occasions, speakers may first create a story preface, such as “Did I tell you what hap- pened yesterday?” to indicate that their upcoming turn will need to be uninterrupted by listeners. Routinely, participants negotiate their turns as

198 Conversation Analysis

next speakers in part via the construction of their own turns of talk.

Turn Taking

The recognition of a basic rule for organizing turns of talk, that one speaker talks at a time, and that speakers can project where a current speaker’s turn may end, connects to a third key topic of CA: Who talks when. Since more than one listener may wish to speak next, a system of turn taking arises in interaction to help distribute turns of talk among potential speakers. Early research established a set of three ordered rules participants utilize for allocating their turns of talk. The set is ordered in that the first takes precedence over the second and third, the second takes precedence over the third, and if neither of those two occurs, the third may.

The first turn-taking rule is that the current speaker may select the next speaker. Current speak- ers have numerous ways in which they may distin- guish who is to talk next, from individual speakers (“Fred, what is that?”) to any one of several fitting respondents (“Does anyone know the time?”). The second rule is that if the current speaker does not select the next speaker, a listener may self-select, often by being the first to respond. The third rule is that if neither of these first two occurs, the current speaker may continue as next speaker. In orienting to this feature of interaction, CA describes a funda- mental organizing principle but also identifies a practice that speakers may exploit for immediate purposes, indicating their awareness of the system and its potential use. Speaker change indicates another key topic of CA investigation, the sequen- tial organization of interaction.

Sequential Organization

A primary focus of CA is describing how the placement of a turn of talk is consequential for understandings and their display among partici- pants. Certain turns seem fitting to occur where they do. For example, responding with “Bye” to someone’s “Hello” would not seem fitting at the start of a conversation. The projection of an upcoming turn by a current utterance and the rela- tion between utterances form a key organizational feature of explaining interaction.

A foundational structure in CA is the adjacency pair: two utterances (referred to as the first pair- part, FPP, and the second pair-part, SPP), each created by different speakers, that form a pair, with a particular relation of conditional relevance between them. Adjacency pairs occur in different types, such as greeting–greeting, summons–answer, and request–response. For example, many conver- sations begin with a greeting–greeting adjacency pair, in which one person offers a greeting and another responds with a similarly recognized turn. We understand that such a pairing does not obli- gate us to stop and have a conversation; we can simply exchange greetings and move on. In con- trast, a summons–answer pair does create a situa- tion requiring further talk. If someone issues a summons, such as a parent calling for a child, and an answer is not forthcoming (the child does not respond), the summons may be reissued until it is answered (“What?”). At that time the pair is closed and a reissue of the summons would be understood as not maintaining the structure of the pair. Unlike the greeting–greeting pair, once the summons is answered, the initial speaker is under obligation to continue the interaction or to account for issuing the summons in the first place.

CA explains the hanging together of the pair as conditional relevance of the SPP on the FPP. That is, given an FPP (such as a summons), the SPP is expectable (an answer to the summons is expected). Further, what follows the FPP in sequence will be heard as a second to that first. What follows the summons will be heard and interpreted for its rel- evance in relation to that summons. Finally, if the second does not occur—nothing understandable as an “answer” to the summons occurs—the second will be “officially absent”: taken to be consequen- tial for the developing organization by its absence as an SPP. Adjacency pairs highlight the sequential nature of interaction, that what precedes a turn is consequential for the recognition and comprehen- sion of a subsequent turn and that a following turn is designed by speakers to display their under- standing of the activity at hand.

The term adjacency pairs does not require a literal adjacency among turns of talk. The sequen- tial ordering of pairs may be extended and momentarily suspended. For example, early work

199Conversation Analysis

identified insertion sequences—sequences of adja- cency pairs inserted into another adjacency pair (e.g., a question–answer pair inserted into another question–answer so that the initial ques- tion and its answer are separated by another pair, Q-Q-A-A). Such organization points to the ability of participants to suspend a current activity to jointly orient to and complete another activity before returning to the original one. Presequences (pre’s) are adjacency pair structures in which the FPP is used to check on the conditions for per- forming a subsequent action. For example, we may want our invitation to be accepted, and to help avoid its being turned down, we ask before making the invitation, “What are you doing Saturday night?” If conditions are right (the other person is not busy), we can then go on and pro- vide the invitation itself. Also, from the creation of the pre (the FPP), participants orient to the likely upcoming activity and display that orienta- tion by offering a response to the pre that properly prevents its creation (for example, saying “I am busy” to the sample question).

Presequences and their strategic use displayed by participants bring up another organizational feature identified in CA work: preference for agreement. Here, the preference is of the speaker for responses that facilitate the undertaken activity and help to foster social solidarity among partici- pants. Preference impacts sequential organization in that turns of talk may be constructed so as to facilitate a preferred response.

Sequential organization of interaction high- lights the observable nature of human conduct for participants. Speakers are held accountable for their actions, the turns of talk created, by others and selves. Sometimes, turns do not readily illus- trate the preferred action of the speaker, and repair of the utterance is needed, often in the form of self-repair (where a speaker “fixes” his or her own turn-construction problem). Such repair may be initiated (the momentary problem highlighted) by either the speaker or one of the hearers. The organization of repair indicates the awareness of participants of apparent expectations of the fit between the form of the utterance, the action being performed, and the location within the unfolding sequence.

Methods Applied

Typical Analytic Approach

While there is no one set way to undertake CA, there are aspects of the method that appear common. Applications of CA revolve around the compara- tive analysis of features drawn from a collection of samples. A description is developed to explain regular forms of organization from across a range of samples from different speakers in different set- tings. As samples are collected, deviations from the common structure appear. Developing accounts are broadened to include these forms, to provide an explanation of how the features of the per- formed interaction work within the sequences in which it appeared.

The approach to data is exemplary in that the researcher seeks to examine a collection of examples for their commonality in structure and difference in application. CA is empirical research, building claims about social organiza- tion among participants from materials available in the talk itself. It relies on the shared under- standing of interaction to develop explanations: specific knowledge from prior investigations shared among analysts and the routine under- standings shared by being members of the broader community.

Theory

CA does not seek to develop abstract, gener- alizable accounts of human interaction or activ- ity. Such approaches would not adequately describe the consequential but mundane features of interaction relevant for participants’ under- standing of their lived-in worlds. Rather, what CA seeks to uncover is the highly situated orga- nization of members’ lived practices as they dis- play them in day-to-day talk; these are the “theories” interlocutors employ to make sense of and respond to the activities they jointly undertake with others.

With its focus on human interaction and action, CA does relate to pragmatic examinations of com- munication. With other discourse ap proaches, it shares the move away from describing and explain- ing causes of human behavior and toward describing

200 Coordinated Management of Meaning

how such conduct is created and recognized. At the same time, CA’s unique focus on the sequential nature of interaction, the relations among turns of talk, and the reliance of CA on only those features observable to participant and researcher as sources of explanations, sets it apart from other discourse approaches that take a more social-situated focus for explanation (e.g., ethnography of communica- tion or sociolinguistics) or that impose concepts and explanations from outside the source material (for example, critical theory and some forms of discourse analysis).

Robert C. Swieringa

See also Discourse Theory and Analysis; Ethnomethodology; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Language and Communication; Membership Categorization Analysis

Further Readings

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 23–78). New York: Irvington.

COORDINATED MANAGEMENT OF MEANING

The coordinated management of meaning (CMM) theory, developed by W. Barnett Pearce, Vernon Cronen, and their colleagues, explains how com- municators organize interaction. Since its inception in the 1970s, this theory has been included consis- tently in the canon of communication theory and applied to a variety of settings. It is a wide-ranging

theory that touches many aspects of the field and presents a way of analyzing all kinds of human activity in terms of the communication perspective, or how reality is constructed in social interaction. The major tenets of the theory today can be sum- marized in the categories of meaning and action, coordination, and story telling.

The theory first appeared in print in the mid-1970s, with its first full-blown explanation following in 1980 in Pearce and Cronen’s book Communication, Action, and Meaning: The Creation of Social Realities. Having undergone considerable expansion and refinement over the years, the theory continues to develop and has been influenced by thinking in social construction- ism, cybernetics, philosophy of language, logic, rules theory, dialogue theory, action research, and other traditions. It originated as a general descrip- tive theory of communication but today is most often regarded as a practical theory.

Meaning and Action

Communicators do two things in every encounter. They interpret, or ascribe meaning, and they act— two functions closely tied to one another: Meaning leads to action, and action forms meaning. Communicators must coordinate their meanings and actions as they interact over time. In all social situations, then, communicators must manage their own meanings and actions, while responding to the meanings and actions of others. This is the central claim of the theory.

Contexts of Meaning and Action

Communicators interpret and act on the basis of their experience, and this experience forms a context that establishes a basis for meaning and action within the situation. Initially in CMM, con- texts were presented in a hierarchy in which one context was always embedded within other con- texts. In this classical version, the act is understood in terms of the relationship, the relationship in terms of the episode, the episode in terms of the self, and the self in terms of the archetype. However, contexts can shift so that, for example, the episode could be understood within the con- text of self, or the self could be understood within the context of the act. Even a single communicator

201Coordinated Management of Meaning

can shift back and forth among contexts from moment to moment and situation to situation.

Thus, contexts are fluid and dynamic. For this reason, CMM now most often uses the more pow- erful metaphor of loops, which emphasizes the mutual entailment, or reflexive relationship, among contexts. In the above example, self and episode form a reflexive loop. The loop metaphor is infused throughout CMM to capture the systemic nature of meaning and action.

Rules

Heavily influenced by the philosophy of lan- guage, particularly the language-in-use movement and the associated theory of speech acts, CMM explains meaning and action according to rules. A rule is a guideline that helps a person assign mean- ing and take action. There are two types of rules— rules of meaning and rules of action.

Rules of meaning, commonly called constitutive rules, tell what something should be taken to mean—what it “counts as.” Such rules help answer the question, What is going on here? or, What does this mean? For example, a smile may count as being pleased or amused, or it might be seen as a smirk implying cynicism, disagreement, or displeasure. The word cool might designate not warm, or it might mean good, special, or nice. People can assign meanings to virtually anything—language, actions, statements, behaviors, situations, events, episodes, groups, the self, other people, and so forth. Sometimes the rules governing one’s interpretations are quite stable, giving rise to tenacious meanings, and other times they are dynamic and shift around.

Rules of action, commonly known as regulative rules, tell what actions should be undertaken. For example, one common rule is that when someone smiles, the other person should smile back. If some- one responds to a story with the word “cool,” the other person may be obligated to say “Thanks.”

Logical Force

In CMM, rules of meaning and action constitute a logical force that arises within salient contexts. A logical force is a cognitive connection among meanings and actions. Given a particular state of affairs, a certain meaning and/or action feels logically right. For example, if a person perceives

that a smile means pleasure, that person feels that it is right to smile back. If, however, the person perceives that the smile means displeasure, a differ- ent response may be called for. Four types of logi- cal force are featured in CMM.

The first is prefigurative force. Here an anteced- ent event is believed to cause a consequent action. A communicator feels that his behavior is deter- mined by something that happened before. For example, one might respond to criticism with an angry and defensive statement, feeling that one has no choice.

The second type is contextual force. This has the same deterministic tone but is less connected to specific prior acts and more associated with mean- ings in the context. The communicator feels that in a situation like this, he or she must act a certain way. For example, one might reason that within the context of “competent self,” criticism must be ignored.

The third type of logical force is implicative force, in which action is designed to transform the context. For example, one might decide to respond to criticism in a friendly, accepting way in order to shift the meaning of the episode from “giving criticism” to “providing mutual help.”

The fourth type is practical force. Also goal oriented, this force has achievement of practical outcomes as the aim. Here, for example, one might respond to criticism by criticizing the other person in return in order to be left alone in the future.

Logical force employs deontic logic, in which one state of affairs creates an expectation or obligation in if–then form. For example, one might think, “If you criticize me, I am obligated to defend myself.” Here, the context is “self as competent,” and in this context, a complaint is taken as illegitimate. Rules are not immutable but are socially constructed by the communicators over time as various contexts assume importance. CMM likens the individual to a daisy: The person at the center of the flower is surrounded by petals representing the many social worlds in which he or she participates.

Because every person lives in many social worlds, numerous “logics” of meaning and action are avail- able to them. A set of rules in one situation or point in time may fade away completely as new ones take their place. Because individuals do use potentially contradictory rules of meaning and action, they can experience confusion from time to time. A person

202 Coordinated Management of Meaning

can be torn between competing interpretations and actions. Other times, one experiences a high level of coherence, or consistency and clarity. Sometimes, as well, individuals feel unable to find any context or set of rules to make sense of a state of affairs, a condition called mystery.

Meaning and Action Loops

When meanings and actions are consistent and reproduce one another, a charmed loop exists. For example, when moral beliefs are rigid, one’s actions may be limited to a prescribed set of behaviors, which in turn constructs moral rigidity. Here the contexts of moral belief and moral action reinforce one another in a highly coherent closed system. When meanings and actions are inconsistent and contradict one another, a strange loop is experi- enced. This happens when the contexts or the mean- ings within a context shift, causing a change in the rules of meaning and action. The alcoholic’s para- dox is a classic example: “When I drink, I am out of control, and when I am out of control, I must not drink; however, when I do not drink, this shows I am in control, and when I am in control, I should be able to drink.” In this repetitive pattern, the drinker shifts meaning from “self as in control” to “self as out of control,” and the rule connecting self to action then also shifts from drinking to not drinking.

Coordination

The second key concept in CMM, coordination, is the process in which two or more communicators organize their meanings and action into some kind of pattern that makes sense to them. When one person acts, the other person must interpret the action. The second person then will act or respond on the basis of this meaning. The first person must then interpret and act. Each is privately asking the question, What does this action mean, and how should I respond? If successful, the participants will feel that their interaction is coordinated or that it has some kind of logical pattern to it. In highly socialized situations in which standard patterns can be used, coordination is not a problem. Neither is it difficult when the parties themselves have worked out a clear set of expectations over time. However, coordination can be difficult in new situations, with new conversation partners, or in unexpected

circumstances. The basic task of all communication is to maintain some level of coordination.

A lack of coordination occurs when communi- cators cannot seem to mesh their actions in a meaningful way. Each believes the other’s actions make no logical sense. They share no frame of logic that enables them to understand the pattern of interaction. Communicators achieve coordina- tion when interaction feels appropriate and logi- cal. They do not need to share a common set of rules of meaning and action in order for coordina- tion to occur. Sometimes the parties do not under- stand an interaction the same way. This is not necessarily a problem, as long as partners are able to work together smoothly.

At the same time, however, coordination is not always a good thing. An unwanted repetitive pattern is a highly coordinated set of actions that neither person wants. Meanings and actions are tied in a tight loop that the parties cannot break. They seem unable to find new rules of meaning and action or new contexts in which a transformed pat- tern might emerge. Relational violence is a good example.

Story Telling

Providing a way to frame experience, stories are the means for achieving coherence in a situation. We create contexts, establish meanings, and define actions through story telling. Through stories, we codify our logics of meaning and action and explore our own and others’ social worlds.

CMM uses a tool called LUUUTT to explore this idea. The LUUUTT model identifies six dimensions: stories Lived, stories Untold, stories Unheard, stories Unknown, stories Told, and story Telling. Stories lived provide the data of life experience, but we can never tell all our experi- ence. Instead, we can tell only part of the stories we live at any given time, and the stories we tell construct a world of meanings and actions. Unheard stories are missed because communica- tors do not have mutual resources for engaging one another’s stories sufficiently to get these. And stories that are either untold or unheard become unknown stories that might otherwise help add coherence and coordination to an otherwise con- fusing situation.

203Co-Orientation Theory

Story telling, then, provides the resources with which our social worlds are made—the rules of meaning and action and context that give life to these. When stories lived match stories told, a high level of coherence results. When stories told match stories heard, meanings come to be mutually under- stood. Patterns of communication can be changed and expanded and coordination achieved by telling and hearing different stories.

Stephen W. Littlejohn

See also Philosophy of Communication; Rules Theories; Social Construction of Reality; Speech Act Theory; System Theory

Further Readings

Cronen, V. E. (2001). Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory, 11, 14–25.

Pearce, W. B. (1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Pearce, W. B. (2008). Making social worlds. Boston: Blackwell.

Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning. New York: Praeger.

CO-ORIENTATION THEORY

The original source of co-orientation theory is an article written by Theodore M. Newcomb, published in the Psychological Review in 1953, under the title “An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts.” Newcomb outlined his framework of analysis in this way: Communication, in its essence, serves two ends, to establish a com- mon orientation of two (or more) individuals with respect to each other and, simultaneously, to link them to a shared object of concern. The originality of his conception resides in this recognition of interpersonal adaptation as mediated by a joint interest in the state of an objective world, one that communicators are mutually connected to and by. Interaction is now seen through a new lens, that of some aspect of the world to which more than one person orients. This idea of social interaction contrasted with the then popular mathematical

theory of communication associated with Claude Shannon, commonly called information theory, which concentrated on information quantities in messages and how to encode messages most effi- ciently in linking a source to a destination. Shannon and his colleagues had denuded messages of refer- ence to interaction. Newcomb’s innovation served to correct this abstraction from ordinary reality by reestablishing communicative acts as embedded within both a social and a material reality.

In taking this step, Newcomb was reflecting the influence of his mentor, Kurt Lewin, one of the great innovators in social psychology of the first part of the 20th century. Lewin came out of the tradition of Gestalt theory, and thus his attention was focused less on intrapersonal psychological states and more on how individuals fit themselves into fields of internal and external influences that are both social and material in nature. Newcomb’s innovation was to systematize this perception by mapping it onto a simple model that he called an A-B-X system: two individuals, A and B, and one object, X. The resulting triadic unit, he noted, could be regarded from two different perspectives, either that of the participants themselves, as seen from within their respective life spaces (a phenomenal view that sees attitudes as a state of mind), or that of an external observer for whom the whole A-B-X system is in view. Newcomb then identified what he called a system. An instance of communication can be depicted as an A-to-B-re-X system, in which A communicates with B about X. For example, pro- fessor and student communicate with one another about some aspect of the history of Canada. What the system amounts to, beyond an interpersonal relationship or a common group membership, how- ever, remained largely unexplored in his essay. He did not probe the organizational implications of co-orientation, and yet presumably in any moder- ately complex system, there are many concurrent instances of A to B re X (people speaking to people about topics of mutual interest). How they link to each other to compose a more complex system of communicative acts was left to later theorists to elaborate.

Newcomb did probe, to some extent, the unfold- ing dynamic of A-B-X relationships. The key fac- tor, as he saw it, is attitude, although his article appeared before the word attitude became identi- fied as a strictly cognitive state. In earlier work, it

204 Corporate Campaign Theories

also meant something closer to the positioning of someone in an encounter, or a visible orientation. Attitudes might be positive or negative, A to B, B to A, A and/or B to X. In our example, the profes- sor and student have attitudes toward one another, and they have attitudes toward the historical topic of mutual interest. Co-orientation, which is to say the lining up of attitudinal orientations in a com- patible way, is an essential aspect of human life.

Systems of relationship that are in equilibrium (e.g., A and B share compatible orientations to each other and to the object X) tend to be stable. This would be the case, for example, when the profes- sor and student like each other and share a common attitude toward the historical topic. It would also be true, by the way, if they had opposing attitudes toward the topic and really did not like each other very much. In contrast, incompatibility provides an impulse toward resolv- ing the tension—what Newcomb designated a strain toward symmetry. When facing an asym- metrical relationship, A and B could simply go their own ways, or perhaps they might find themselves progressively moderating their orientations in the interest of maintaining co-orientation. Imagine, for example, that the professor had a very favorable attitude toward the historical topic but found that a particular student, whom the professor quite liked, hated this topic. This would create a strain toward symmetry that could lead the professor to respect the student less, reevaluate the favorable opinion of the topic, or disengage from the student. The student, on becoming aware of the asymmetry, might go through a similar adjustment process.

Newcomb assembled a good deal of empirical evidence to support his thesis of a strain toward symmetry. Groups, he noted, tend to develop homogeneous attitudes over time through commu- nicating frequently. The pressure on people to con- form is also considerable since attitudes that are stubbornly incompatible with those of the majority will isolate their holders and eventually lose them their status as members. A good deal depends, how- ever, on the salience of the object and the relation- ship: obviously, some things are more important than others. Newcomb termed this factor valence: not merely plus or minus, but more or less so. And this in turn implies that it is possible for people to agree to disagree since the bonds that hold people together involve multiple objects, not all of the same

valence. He also opened the possibility that the object might be less an object in the material sense than role prescriptions or norms. For example, the professor and student may be able to sustain a good relationship with mutual respect that allows for the norm of scholarly disagreement about history within their roles as student and teacher.

Newcomb’s introduction to co-orientation left little imprint on the thinking of his contemporaries. Attitude research exploded in the 1950s, but it was largely impelled by other influences. Newcomb’s article did influence the thinking of one of his stu- dents, Bruce Westley, who, in collaboration with Malcolm MacLean, published an article in 1957 that explored the topic of gatekeeping. They adapted A-B-X theory by adding a C, the gate- keeper, who intervenes to bias the A to B channel by inserting an alternative reading. Although this addition to the co-orientation model provided additional detail, the full potential of the model was not seen until many years later, when it was taken up by organizational communication schol- ars as part of complex systems of communication.

James Taylor

See also Attitude Theory; Organizational Co-Orientation Theory

Further Readings

Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404.

Westley, B. H., & MacLean, M. S. (1957). A conceptual model for communications research. Journalism Quarterly, 34, 31–38.

CORPORATE CAMPAIGN THEORIES

The concept of corporate campaign theories can be discussed from at least two major perspectives: promotional product or service advertising cam- paigns, most relevant to the field of marketing, or the less visible corporate issues campaigns, most relevant to the field of public relations and issues management. This entry explores the corporate issues campaigns perspective and associated theo- retical frameworks.

205Corporate Campaign Theories

In the corporate environment, issues campaigns focus on either opportunities or threats. Every corporation wants to function as autonomously as possible in its economic environment. In that envi- ronment, an issue that could result in additional regulatory, legislative, or legal restriction is per- ceived as a threat to the organization’s ability to function, and the organization attempts to resolve the issue before these restrictions become neces- sary. In a parallel scenario, when the regulatory, legislative, or legal outcome is perceived as benefi- cial to the organization, the organization will attempt to further these actions. Whether benefi- cial or restrictive, corporate efforts frequently take the form of management-level information cam- paigns that could involve coalition building, mass media or interpersonal contact, and usually behav- ior change in the relevant organization.

Because these issues campaigns frequently involve or potentially involve regulatory agencies, legislative bodies, or court decisions, the issues both attract and compete for attention in the public arena, including media coverage. An issue may also attract activist interest groups. Management of these corporate issues campaigns therefore involves negotiation with activist groups, included in the theoretical framework of powerful stakeholders. The concept has been tied directly to at least five theoretical frameworks: systems theory, issue life- cycle theory, legitimacy-gap theory, powerful stake- holder theory, and social exchange theory.

The concept of corporate issues campaigns and their resolution draws on several disciplines, most notably the public policy side of political science and business management, and includes much of public relations’ emphasis on management-level communication that prepares and negotiates. But the concept as a unit was strongly positioned theo- retically in the field of communication first through Robert Heath and Richard Nelson’s 1989 book, Issues Management: Corporate Public Policy Making in an Information Society. Heath’s 1997 book, Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges, brought the concept into the management boardroom through concern for issue anticipation and established corporate issues management campaigns as an academic field in communication. The emphasis moved to corpo- rate campaigns in anticipation and prevention of issue development, including negotiation with

relevant stakeholders, changes in corporate behav- ior, and communication of these changes. This latter academic approach is of interest here.

Systems Theory

Systems theory is based on a generic concept that has been applied to organizational communication, public relations processes, and corporate issues management and campaigns. Applied to corporate campaigns, the premise of systems theory is simply that no corporation or part of the corporation exists or functions by itself. The corporation is a complex system of connected, interdependent inter- nal parts connected to a broader external suprasys- tem that encompasses not only other similar units but also interdependent organizations that influ- ence and are influenced by the original corporation. Whether internal or external, these interdependent units are potential stakeholders that have the ability to affect the corporation in a positive or negative way. Thus the systems environment is broader than one corporation and has the potential to create a turbulent setting where the corporation attempts to survive and prosper. Turbulence can result from social, political, or economic change. Change in the external environment generally requires change in the internal environment that can distract the cor- poration from its mission. Therefore, consistent with systems theory, the organization will strive for a level of what is called homeostasis, or balance, in order to regain stability or a nondisruptive state. Relevant management personnel should continu- ally practice environmental scanning, monitoring the environment in order to avoid surprises.

Systems theory would suggest that any organ- ism that fails to adapt to its environment chal- lenges its own survival, and a corporation that ignores incoming information regarding change becomes a closed system that eventually will be unable to survive. However, a corporation cannot deal with every environmental disruption or issue. Neither can it respond to an issue without careful analysis of the issue’s potential effect on the orga- nization, its potential effect on powerful stake- holders, the potential for the issue to develop or be disrupted, and potential media interest.

Organizational systems theorists suggest that organizational response can take one of two forms. If the organization feels the problem or issue is

206 Corporate Campaign Theories

routine or has been dealt with previously, estab- lished procedures may already be in place. Assuming the organization was satisfied with the earlier outcome, routine response procedures should be sufficient. If the problem or opportunity has not been addressed, the organization should search for both similar issues and coalitions and evaluate the new information before acting. Cybernetics sug- gests that the organization will respond by either increasing or decreasing information from the orga- nization to relevant stakeholders. However, issues management theorists recommend two-way negoti- ation to establish mutually beneficial relationships.

Issue Life-Cycle Theory

Issue life-cycle theory in effect extends systems theory by explaining the components that predict whether an issue will grow or will safely move out of the corporate system. The theory suggests that negative corporate issues begin when a recogniz- able group begins to register discontent with the corporation or when a specialist group recognizes a corporate-related problem. Positive-outcome issues may be supported by the organization. Regardless, at least three stages exist: first, the beginning of an issue, when a problem begins to surface and attract attention; then the stage when the organization is expected to react; and the final stage, when the organization makes changes to resolve the issue or when the issue disappears.

A negative issue that is not resolved in its early stages can escalate to the point that a political solution, such as regulation or litigation, is expected. When mass media become aware of an issue and find it of interest, at least in the short term the issue grows. Media coverage legitimizes an issue, attracts other media, creates an aware- ness of the issue in a broader public whose activi- ties can attract additional media coverage, and can even create a label or name for the issue. It also can provide a means of activity for groups, or stake- holders, who thought the issue was unresolvable.

These activist groups may pressure an organiza- tion for unilateral change. Even after mutual reso- lution of an issue, the activist groups have developed coalitions that can be quickly mobilized if another related problem arises. Organizations generally wish to avoid a litigated solution, which can be precedent setting, affect other organizations, and

move an ethical issue into the legal system. Social issues generally have a limited life cycle as they share public interest with other issues. Regardless of the issue focus, life-cycle theory says that no issue stays in the forefront forever. Other issues move into the cycle and attract attention of rele- vant groups and organizations.

Legitimacy-Gap Theory

Theorists have attempted to identify the reasons a corporate issue moves into the issue cycle, gener- ates problematic attention, or fails to generate desired attention. One of these explanations is legitimacy-gap theory, discussed at length by Suresh Sethi. If we consider an organization a legitimate member of the business or nonprofit community, any activity or information that creates a discrep- ancy between society’s expectations of the organi- zation and the organization’s perceived behavior creates a gap that could threaten the organization’s status. Two scenarios can explain this gap. In the first scenario, the organization’s behavior is know- ingly inappropriate. The organization has either changed from acceptable to unacceptable behav- ior, or it had hidden inappropriate behavior that has been discovered. In the second scenario, the organization has neither changed its behavior nor tried to hide inappropriate behavior, but society’s expectations or norms have changed, and the orga- nization no longer meets these standards.

These scenarios often appear when an organiza- tion focuses only on financial success, and the effects can be traced through analysis of corporate history and development of corporate public rela- tions in this country. Financial success enables an organization to survive, but this narrow focus relates to only one stakeholder, the shareholders of the corporation. To close or avoid a legitimacy gap, corporate citizenship suggests that a success- ful organization needs to maintain awareness and consideration of changing social mores and exhibit behavior that is perceived as not only financially sound but also socially responsive to other stake- holders in the organizational system.

The issue is one of corporate ethics and social responsibility. Even when government attempts to promote a favorable business climate, social and environmental regulation will follow irresponsible behavior, especially behavior that is perceived as

207Corporate Campaign Theories

causing social risk. Social responsibility is also becoming a criterion for financial investors. Research enables an organization to maintain awareness of social norms.

Powerful Stakeholder Theory

Different stakeholders have different roles in the organizational system, and the amount of atten- tion needed to engage a particular stakeholder group will vary with the issue. When an issue cam- paign becomes an organizational priority because of the behavior, needs, or influence of one stake- holder group, that stakeholder group assumes the role of or rises to status of a powerful stakeholder and generally behaves as and is treated as an activ- ist group. Vincent Price reminds us that the politi- cal process, in which regulatory decisions are made, focuses either on recruiting specific groups, or publics, for individual problems or on defining these issues so the identified groups do not form or become active. These powerful stakeholders can include media that focus on an issue.

At minimum, interested stakeholders are per- ceived as having two roles. The first role is that of smaller activist groups that focus intently and actively on the issue, identified by Walter Lippmann as actors. These active groups are problematic if they have power in regard to the relevant issue, beneficial if the organization supports the issue. The second role is that of a support group, or in Lippmann’s terms, spectators, who provide support or perceived support to the actors. This spectator group could also include James Grunig’s aware publics, those who are aware of the issue but see barriers to the issue’s resolution. Perceived support can encourage the actors to continue their behavior in support of or opposition to the issue in question. While sharehold- ers and regulatory bodies will always hold a power- ful stakeholder role in the organization, employees, residents in the organization’s community, custom- ers, and even suppliers can become powerful by organizing around an issue. If these groups begin forming coalitions, the issue will escalate.

As issue life-cycle theory proposes, individual issues do not maintain priority status forever. But even if an issue is resolved, the original coalitions can materialize faster if another relevant issue devel- ops. Corporate campaign managers should be aware of these group linkages as well as their interests.

Social Exchange Theory

Successful corporate campaign interaction requires communication that is understood by all partici- pants, and this interaction includes words, sym- bols, and actual behavior, such as demonstrations by activist groups and corporate change by organi- zations. Without analysis of the interaction rheto- ric, rhetorical analysis, differing viewpoints, values, and issue perspectives will not come forward and cannot be resolved, or disagreement between an organization and stakeholders may inaccurately be perceived to exist.

One particular type of interaction, social exchange, is specifically appropriate for resolution of issues. Corporate interaction with activist groups and other issue-related stakeholders sug- gests that during negotiation each group expects something from the other. Thus, one concession can be traded for a reciprocal concession, or an exchange. However, Blau reminds us that these mutual concessions are not necessarily social exchange. In his (and Emerson’s) analysis, these concessions or exchanges are discrete, even eco- nomic, in that they resemble a purchase in which one value is traded for another.

Social exchange as a concept is more relational; trust is built. In this approach, if an organization exhibits responsible behavior, the return or reward may not be immediate. Rather, the organization builds intangible goodwill that will hopefully result in support and future goodwill with the affected stakeholders. The recipient of the intan- gible goodwill theoretically incurs an obligation to the responsible organization.

The organization’s responsible behavior cannot be short-term and must address the needs of the relevant stakeholder group. Blau noted that this responsible behavior also builds power for the giver, the organization, as long as the benefit has value to the recipient and if the benefit cannot be obtained elsewhere. Thus corporate issues cam- paigns are long-term efforts to maintain an orga- nization’s reputation and build goodwill with relevant stakeholders.

Janet A. Bridges

See also Campaign Communication Theories; Cybernetics; Institutional Theories of Organizational Communication; Organizational Communication

208 Corporate Colonization Theory

Theories; Organizing, Process of; Public Opinion Theories; Social Exchange Theory; Stakeholder Theory; System Theory

Further Readings

Blau, P. M. (1968). Interaction: Social exchange. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia for the social sciences: Vol. 7 (pp. 452–458). New York: Macmillan.

Bridges, J. A. (2004). Corporate issues campaigns: Six theoretical approaches. Communication Theory, 14, 51–77.

Bridges, J. A., & Nelson, R. A. (2000). Issues management: A relational approach. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 95–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1998). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. In M. B. E. Clarkson (Ed.), The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. 173–203). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Emerson, R. M. (1981). Social exchange theory. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 2–65). New York: Basic Books.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L., & Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues management: Corporate public policymaking in an information society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Price, V. (1992). Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for

environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4, 63–74.

Wartick, S. L., & Mahon, J. F. (1994). Toward a substantive definition of the corporate issue construct: A review and synthesis of the literature. Business & Society, 33, 293–311.

Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

CORPORATE COLONIZATION THEORY Corporate colonization refers to domination by corporate organizations. Colonization has usually referred to one country or society invading or tak- ing over another. In the 1970s and 1980s, Jürgen Habermas used the term to discuss the way differ- ent parts of society can dominate the lifeworld— the everyday meaning and experience of individuals through various asymmetrical struc- tural and system relations. In his 1992 book, Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization, Stanley Deetz detailed the ways in which this hap- pens within corporations.

Scholars have been concerned for some time with the politics of the personal—the political pro- cesses by which meanings, identities, and experi- ence are formed. Much of this was gradually organized and connected to communication pro- cesses by critical theorists from the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. The central issue has been with how language and communication processes affect the formation of the interior, meaning the very identities and meanings that individuals and groups espouse. This work has contrasted with more common concern in communication studies with expression.

Most scholars interested in this inner coloniza- tion have worked from a constitutive theory of communication, providing a nonpsychological understanding of meaning and experience, focusing on how the relational positioning of the human subject is put into play and interactively with the world and others produces experience. In the cor- porate world, the large economic corporations rather than general economic relations were seen as the locus of meaning, experience, and reasoning domination. Deetz’s work pays attention to politi- cal relationships, using a social constructionist view. Using this “political-attention-relation- constructionist” theory of communication, Deetz critiqued liberal democratic communication theory as inadequate to deal with a colonized world, posi- tioned the everyday world as the central site of democracy, and proposed the development of more participatory conceptions and practices of commu- nication as core to reciprocal open formation of self and society.

209Corporate Colonization Theory

Understood in this way, the concept of corpo- rate colonization draws attention to the ways workplace organizations have usurped the func- tions of lifeworld institutions that tie meaning to such groups as religion, family, and community. In different historical periods, other institutions have dominated meaning, and personal identities may have been more firmly located in them. In an age of corporate colonization, corporations shape decision-making processes and ways of life more powerfully than in the past, and personal identity is often derived from the workplace and work processes.

Conceptually, colonization of this sort might be represented in the following way. Imagine three spheres of life—private, public, and economic. Through history these have resided in a dynamic tension-filled relationship, each having its own logic and demands. Many of the decisions about how to raise children, live a good living, and value events and others arose out of meaning structures developed in the private sphere of homes, commu- nities, and churches. Public sector institutions— governments, legislatures, and so forth—made decisions about public welfare, defense, and inter- community relationships. Business and work made decisions about what goods and services to pro- duce and how work processes were to be orga- nized. Throughout history some struggle has existed among these three sectors, with one or another becoming more dominant and the others providing a supportive role. Occasionally, for example, governments have become deeply involved in business and decisions of the home and community or the church in business and government.

In domination, one of the spheres begins to encroach on the others, replacing the logic and demands in those spheres with its own. In corpo- rate colonization, a particular form of workplace and economic relations becomes dominant. For example, in cases of corporate colonization of the public sphere, work organizations have increased power in legislative and policy-making processes; economic decision processes might gradually replace political processes. In inner colonization, corporations encroach on the private space, the colonization of the personal. Both through their own internal practices and through their external advertising and media control, personal identities,

values, concepts of civility and worth, child rearing practices, and conceptions of progress are increasingly derived from corporations. The devel- opment of consumption life styles becomes both an effect and a continuing cause of corporate identification. In corporate colonization, instru- mental reasoning becomes the primary form of reasoning. Ends are stressed over means, resulting in people, things, and processes being assessed in terms of their rational, measurable impacts on the world.

This has been both good and bad. On the posi- tive side, economic institutions have sometimes been more peaceful, accepting of group differ- ences, and efficient than their community and public counterparts. But raw, short-term economic logics without counterbalance have also been disastrous for people and the environment. The traditional state democracies struggle when the leading social decisions are made in nondemocratic sites and institutions. Both possibilities and diffi- culties of inclusion of social and ecological values in the decision processes in economic sites exist. The concern of communication scholars has been to understand the communication dynamics of colonizing processes and to reconstruct communi- cation theory to be more attentive to these dynam- ics since much of current theory was developed for the traditional private and public spheres.

Critical communication theories have been very helpful in understanding this new politics of every- day life. These theories have focused on the com- municative production and reproduction of structures of discourse that recruit, call, or posi- tion subjects in particular ways, the communica- tive processes by which some formations become more dominant, and processes of closing off cer- tain ways of thinking and acting by suppressing conflict and preventing different discourses that might challenge or change the existing order of things. In workplace studies the attention has been to communicative processes of power control and resistance.

Stanley A. Deetz

See also Constitutive View of Communication; Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical Organizational Communication; Critical Theory; Cultural Studies; Frankfurt School; Organizational Control Theory; Postmodern Theory; Stakeholder Theory

210 Creativity in Groups

Further Readings

Ashcraft, K., & Mumby, D. (2004). Reworking gender: Toward a feminist communicology of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in the communication and politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2008). Contesting the organization: Struggle, power and resistance in organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McCabe, D. (2007). Power at work: How employees reproduce the corporate machine. London: Routledge.

Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375.

Nace, T. (2003). Gangs of America: The rise of corporate power and the disabling of democracy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Thackaberry, J. A. (2004). Discursive opening and closing in organizational self study: Culture as the culprit for safety problems in wildland firefighting. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 319–359.

Wieland, S., Bauer, J., & Deetz, S. (in press). Excess careerism and destructive life stresses: The role of entrepreneurialism in colonizing identities. In P. Lutgen-Sandvik and B. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing. New York: Routledge.

CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

See Language and Communication; Meaning Theories; Metatheory

CREATIVITY IN GROUPS

Creativity in groups is an emergent process that results in novel and relevant ideas, responses, pro- cesses, or products. This definition of creativity weds process and outcome—which will be

addressed later in this entry. Although creativity in groups has a long history of being studied in disci- plines such as business and psychology, only recently have communication scholars paid sys- tematic attention to how group communication and creativity are related. This entry explores the concept of creativity in a group context, examin- ing how creativity differs from related concepts such as learning and innovation, the different fac- tors that seem to hinder as well as facilitate cre- ativity, and theoretical developments in the group communication field.

The term creativity is sometimes used inter- changeably with related concepts such as learning and innovation. Careful examination, however, reveals that creativity is related to, yet distinct from, these processes. Learning may be considered to be the increased capacity of a group to adapt and change on the basis of newly acquired infor- mation, skills, or understanding. So while creativ- ity generally indicates learning has taken place, not all learning results in creativity. While a group may increase knowledge, skills, and understanding of information, for example, it is when that knowl- edge, skill, or understanding is applied in ways that serve to yield novel products, processes, or ideas that are directly relevant to the task at hand that members engage in creativity. Thus learning paves the way for creativity and creative activity.

In addition to the production of novel and rele- vant ideas, responses, processes, or products, inno- vation adds the criterion of implementation. The main difference between creativity and innovation is that the latter requires a plan for how the group’s creative product will be put into effect as well as the actual enactment of that plan. Creativity is part of the innovation process.

Factors Affecting Group Creativity

One might think that part of the answer to having groups produce highly creative and imaginative solutions to problems is to compose them of highly intelligent or creative individuals. While this may make intuitive sense, it is not always the case that groups composed of such individuals will produce more creative solutions than groups not composed of such individuals or than individuals working alone. Part of the reason is that bringing individu- als together to work in a group setting sometimes

211Creativity in Groups

results in the manifestation of factors that hinder creativity. Some of these factors are associated with the individuals who compose the group, some are associated with the larger environment or broader context in which the group is situated, and some are associated with the exchange of commu- nication messages themselves.

Among the factors associated with individual hindrances to creativity are functional fixedness and evaluation apprehension. Functional fixed- ness refers to a person’s propensity to think about things in ways in which they have traditionally been used. A claw hammer, for example, is a tool used to pound nails into a material or pull them out. Yet, depending on the situation, the tool may also be used as a lever or a glass smasher. A per- son who is prone to functional fixedness will have difficulty using the hammer in the latter two ways because he or she is rigid in his or her thinking about how a hammer can or should be used. With evaluation apprehension, group members may fear being judged or seen in a negative light by other group members. In an effort to minimize this fear, such members will refrain from express- ing ideas.

Factors associated with the larger environment in which the group operates also may serve to hinder group creativity. These factors include organizational resources that are available to group members, such as time and information. Time pressures imposed on the group by the orga- nization, for example, will have an adverse effect on creativity as members are not allowed to ade- quately express and search for information and ideas. Another broader environment factor con- cerns organizational culture. Here, an organiza- tion that has had a past history of financial, social, or other failures may have developed procedures, policies, language and/or reward systems that are indicative of being risk-averse. Consequently, original, novel, and divergent problem solving is not valued. A group charged with creative prob- lem solving is affected by the risk-averse culture of the organization in which it is embedded. Group creativity suffers as a result.

Among the factors related to communication messages that may hinder group creativity are production blocking and the communication net- work structure that is characteristic of the group. Production blocking occurs when group members

are limited in their generation of ideas because of the sequential flow of communication messages. That is, every time a group member speaks, others are essentially blocked from expressing their ideas. Network structure refers to the patterning of com- munication messages among group members, or who talks to whom and with what frequency. Group members may communicate little with each other and may direct most if not all messages to the group leader. The group leader, then, acts as a gatekeeper for information and ideas.

Communication View

In addition to factors associated with communica- tion messages themselves, communication is related to group creativity in at least two other ways. First, and perhaps most basic, communication is a sym- bolic activity, and creativity is always expressed symbolically. When group members wish to con- vey information, thoughts, and ideas to one another, they do so through the use of language. Ideas are expressed, assessed, and validated though the use of language, the exemplar of human sym- bolic activity. Second, symbols, their use, and the meanings attached to them serve to create the very group environments in which creativity takes place. Group environments may be described in different ways, and regardless of how described, communication serves to give life to them. For example, notions of how things should be done, what is to count as acceptable or right or wrong, and the general atmosphere of group relations are all communicatively and symbolically constituted and maintained. The manner in which group mem- bers communicate with one another serves to give life to these notions and, in short, to the immediate environment in which creativity occurs.

Given that the communication process is essen- tially tied to group creativity, a variety of commu- nication techniques, tools, and formats have been designed to enhance creativity. One of the ways in which group creativity may be fostered is by attempting to minimize the effects of those indi- vidual, environmental, and communicative factors that hinder it. Such fostering may be accomplished, for example, by structuring the communication that takes place in the group.

A variety of methods, or formats, have been developed for structuring communicative activity,

212 Creativity in Groups

with arguably the most famous being the brain- storming technique developed by advertising exec- utive Alex Osborn. One of the central arguments justifying the use of the brainstorming technique concerns the role of the evaluation of ideas. Sometimes group members place an emphasis on evaluating ideas instead of generating them. As well, some group members may become apprehen- sive about having their ideas being negatively evaluated by other members. Consequently, those ideas are never expressed in discussion. The brain- storming technique is designed to reduce the adverse impact of evaluation on idea generation. Despite its widespread use, the brainstorming technique has met with equivocal empirical results.

Theoretical Approaches

Abran Salazar has put forward a theoretical view of the connection between communication and group creativity. His view is influenced by a complex-systems orientation to the study of groups. There are many different systems, and groups are but one type. A complex system is one that is marked by increased dynamism and variety of group activities. It is a system that operates at the boundary between order and chaos.

Picture a match that has just been put out. Left alone, smoke rises from the match head in a steady column (order). A few inches above the match head, there is a noticeable disturbance in this orderly rise: The smoke displays an increased dynamism (complexity) among the particles that compose it, with the result being a visible change in the column. Just beyond this disturbance, the smoke loses coherence and dissipates (chaos) into the surrounding air. The point at which the smoke seems ready to dissipate may be said to be the “edge of chaos”; it is the point at which the smoke has reached a complex and dynamic state but has not yet lost coherence.

At times, groups also operate in an analogous complex state. Salazar claims that in order for a group to be creative, it should function in this com- plex state. That is, a group’s chances of being cre- ative are small if it continues to function in the ways it always has—by displaying a characteristic order. By the same token, a group will not be creative if it is in a state of chaos. Rather, a group should

function between order and chaos. How group members communicate with one another informs us about whether a group is in a complex state.

One can observe how members target other members through their communication, that is, who tends to talk to whom and with what frequency; this is the group’s structural system. One can also observe the procedure group members use when working on a task (technical system); the roles group members occupy (relational system); and the assumptions about what is right or wrong, and good and bad, which is inherent in how group mem- bers communicate about information (information system). Whenever we see group members changing their interaction patterns, whether by changing the frequency and directional flow of communication, using new procedures to solve problems or make decisions, displaying little or no discussion typical of group member roles, or questioning or supplanting assumptions about what counts as good or bad information, the group is showing evidence of oper- ating in a complex state. This complex state lays the fertile ground for the emergence of the creative pro- cess and outcomes. Hence, as far as creativity is concerned, there is no differentiation to be made between process and outcome.

John Gastil has built on Salazar’s ideas, focusing on how groups can come to a state of complexity. He discusses a three-stage process. The first of these stages is taking an inventory of the group. Here, group members come to know how each of the four systems described in the previous para- graph work. Group members take stock of their group in an effort to come to know how to change it. In the second stage, perturbation, group mem- bers introduce disturbances that serve to shake up the group in some way pertaining to one or more of the four systems. Such perturbations may include changing group roles, employing different stan- dards for evaluating information, or using a new procedure for solving problems. Finally, in amplifi- cation and extension, group members employ the changed features, integrate them into everyday group functioning, and recognize the implications of the change(s) for other aspects of group work, such as impact on roles and power differences.

As of today these theoretical ideas have not been empirically tested. While the models identified above have intuitive appeal, future development in the field of communication will benefit from

213Critical Communication Pedagogy

further theoretical honing and empirical scrutiny. After all, there may be an element of chance or serendipity associated with creativity that no model may be able to capture. Clearly the study of com- munication and group creativity is still in incipient stages. However, if group communication schol- ars’ attention to creativity in some degree parallels that paid to it by psychology scholars after J. P. Guilford’s call to engage in creativity study in his 1950 address to the American Psychological Association, it will have been a very promising beginning indeed.

Abran J. Salazar

See also Functional Group Communication Theory; Group Communication Theories; Groupthink; System Theory

Further Readings

Gastil, J. (2009). The group in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jarboe, S. (1999). Group communication and creativity processes. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 335–368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (1995). Creative communication: Principles and applications. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Mongeau, P. A., & Morr, M. C. (1999). Brainstorming reconsidered. Group Facilitation, 1, 14–21.

Salazar, A. J. (2002). Self-organizing and complexity perspectives of group creativity: Implications for group communication. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 179–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity as a constrained stochastic process. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 83–101). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sunwolf. (2002). Getting to “GroupAha!”: Provoking creative processes in task groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 203–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Whetton, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2005). Developing management skills (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

CRITICAL COMMUNICATION PEDAGOGY

Named by Deanna L. Fassett and John T. Warren in their book of the same name, critical communi- cation pedagogy is both a paradigm and an area of study. As a paradigm, this worldview contextu- alizes and provides a lens to view recent initiatives at the intersection of communication and educa- tion that deal with power relations as they arise from social systems of race, gender, class, disabil- ity, and sexuality. Critical communication peda- gogy, at this level, serves as a framework that collects and provides coherence for the diverse work that takes a critical lens to issues of com- munication in pedagogical contexts.

As an area of study, critical communication pedagogy is also a subdiscipline that is beginning to develop on campuses across the United States. From site-specific studies to expansive views of educational practice, scholars use critical commu- nication pedagogy to investigate power within a variety of contexts. By building on an interdisci- plinary base, this communication-centered approach builds new ways of knowing and think- ing about how (and to what effect) communication happens within classrooms.

Historical Origins

When the National Communication Association (then called the National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking) began the formal study of communication, the focus of the organiza- tion was dedicated to the teaching of public speak- ing. These early teachers studied and wrote on how best to teach speech. Since then, the study of pedagogy has always been the center of the formal study of communication, even as it traces its roots to the rhetors of ancient Greece. As a subdiscipline of communication studies, communication educa- tion continues to investigate how best to teach the principles of communication, including the best instructional practices for the teaching of such topics as nonverbal communication, persuasive speaking, rhetorical theory, interpersonal commu- nica tion, and communication theory, to name but a few content areas. The teaching of speech, as a research area, centers on pedagogical practices,

214 Critical Communication Pedagogy

claiming that the teaching of communication is unique and requires a discipline-specific pedagogy to meet the needs of communication classrooms.

Often credited with beginning in the 1970s, instructional communication shifts the focus from the teaching of speech to the study of communi- cation in classroom settings, regardless of the discipline. With the careful application of commu- ni ca tion theory, scholars investigated a variety of communication phenomena in the context of class- rooms, including teacher–student immediacy, student–teacher facework management, communi- cation apprehension, and communication compe- tence. Today, researchers seek to provide useful ways of understanding misbehaviors and miscom- munication in the classroom in order to counter them, building more effective classrooms where learning can be enhanced.

The field of education, also in the early 1970s, was beginning to witness the influx of critical the- ory, the most significant of which was Paulo Freire’s book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, first published in English in 1970. From the workings of Marxist, feminist, and other schools of critical thought, critical pedagogy was taking root as a major force within education. Critical pedagogy examines the institution of education (and the practices that sustain it), arguing that education is deeply rooted in power and serves to reproduce the ideologies of the dominant class. Today, hundreds of books have been written on the topic of critical pedagogy; however, the communication scholar, with his or her attention to the workings of dis- course and embodied communication, still strug- gled to find a place within this conversation. In the early 1990s, Jo Sprague began, in earnest, to intro- duce critical pedagogy to the field of communica- tion, arguing that communication scholars could offer the research much in terms of focus and ana- lytical precision.

Critical communication pedagogy ultimately stands as the evolutionary outcome of these diverse threads. While not communication education, the import of communication as a unique area of study is recognized. While not instructional com- munication, the fine attention to the workings of communication remains central. While not critical pedagogy, the focus on examining larger institu- tional forces guides critical communication peda- gogy researchers. Together, these form a paradigm

of research characterized by critical theory’s dedi- cation to social change as a goal of research as well as communication studies’ analytical focus on mundane practices. Critical communication peda- gogy provides specialized attention to the func- tioning of power, asking how communication works to sustain (and possibly counter) systems of domination.

Commitments of Critical Communication Pedagogy

In Critical Communication Pedagogy, Fassett and Warren use the framework of 10 commitments to name the stakes and issues that together assem- ble the logic, paradigm, and area of study that are critical communication pedagogy. The first addresses identity, arguing that constitutive approaches allow the researcher to see identity as produced in and through communication, not as something taken for granted from which communi- cation originates. This communicative way of see- ing the self foregrounds how identity is constituted in interaction, reflecting basic principles of perfor- mance and ethnomethodology (careful attention to the details of actual interactions), which both grant that subjects are the result of undergoing interac- tion. In sum, identity is conceptualized as produced or made by our communicative experiences.

The second commitment sees power as fluid and complex, rather than as a force that can be possessed. Power, within this framework, is shared, even if the players are not equal. For instance, while teachers certainly have power in the class- room, students also have power to use, manipu- late, and resist the structure of education that circulates around them. This leads to the third commitment, which defines how culture is seen within critical communication pedagogy. Culture infuses everything, and a critical communication pedagogy researcher would do well to remember that any examination of the classroom that fails to account for culture is problematic.

Commitments four and five focus on the rela- tionship between communication’s dedication to mundane and minute communication practices (fourth commitment) and critical theory’s examina- tion of larger social structural systems (fifth com- mitment). Critical communication pedagogy, as a paradigm, sees mundane practices and larger social

215Critical Communication Pedagogy

systems as co-constructed, meaning that they affect one another. So, while mundane communication practices constitute larger institutional norms, those norms in turn place everyday communication in context. This co-constructive process is used as the basis for critique. For instance, school uniforms surely help discipline students by reproducing ide- alized notions of how cultural citizens should look; however, any examination of uniforms must be seen within the larger system, and any focus on one piece to the exclusion of another limits one’s ability to understand the phenomena.

Philosophy of language is the primary concern of commitment six, again focusing on how lan- guage constitutes or generates meaning. Critical communication educators argue that language always does more than reflect or represent some idea or ideal; language creates meaning and pro- duces relationships. Each utterance makes the world; other choices would make different worlds. This is why commitment seven centers on reflexiv- ity, arguing that a radical (as in, at the root) reflex- ivity is needed to see ourselves critically, to be accountable for what we say and how that saying affects others. Reflexivity is not just the ability to look back on one’s self and understand how one is involved in power; rather, reflexivity also includes the understanding that all social activity is achieved through communication—it frames all the taken- for-granted aspects of life and recognizes that they are, in the end, produced by human interaction. So, just as language produces the world, it also produces, for instance, speaking subjects, social institutions, and created categories such as race and gender that govern or shape the communica- tors who use language.

In commitment eight, which borrows from the philosophy of Paulo Freire, critical communication educators embrace praxis, simply defined by Freire as theory-infused action designed to transform the world. Action without continual thought and cri- tique does not necessarily transform the world in liberating ways; for instance, before anyone would intervene in a community (especially a community one is not a member of), he or she would want to balance the desire to act with careful reflection, built from the members themselves. Such action then will be hopeful rather than simply a different version of domination. From praxis, or thoughtful practice, comes our ability to act, to meet the

world with a willingness to challenge it. Often, critical communication educators see such agency in the most mundane of sites—their classrooms, their neighborhoods, and so forth. Regardless of the context of action, what counts is how one engages—the effort to see the self and other as complex beings, each striving for meaning and purpose, is to engage them with a kind of care that embraces the ethics of a critically compassionate communication pedagogy. Often, this results in dialogue, the last of the 10 commitments. Dialogue as method, metaphor, and ethic serves as a key principle of critical communication pedagogy. Ultimately, dialogue is constructive and decon- structive at the same time. That is, it is both a basis for changing customary power relations and a basis for building new ways of thinking and seeing relationships.

Together, these 10 commitments build a founda- tion on which one can construct a productive ground to study and enact a critical communication pedagogy. As both a theory and a guiding praxis of pedagogy, critical communication pedagogy enables one to see the site of education as a institution that is produced through communicative interaction. Such institutions are necessarily reproductive of the very social forces that are ingrained in the culture itself—because power and privilege are pervasive, schools can be seen as sites where these systems are reiterated and normalized.

Critical Communication Pedagogy as a Communication Theory

Communication and education as disciplines often ask different questions, drawing readers and thinkers to different ways of seeing what happens in pedagogical sites. Because of these different lenses, there is often little shared dialogue between the two programs of study. In contrast, critical communication pedagogy does more than simply link these two literatures; rather, it theoretically demonstrates that the subject of critical pedagogy (the institutions of education and systems of dom- ination) are produced through communication (the constitutive, mundane moments of interac- tion). As such, as a theory, critical communication pedagogy enables scholars to see how the institu- tions of which we are members are produced and normalized through our everyday talk, gesture,

216 Critical Constructivism

and so forth. By analyzing communication, schol- ars can talk about institutions not as amorphous structures under which we labor, but rather as crafted spaces that exist in, through, and because of our communicative practices.

Because critical communication pedagogy enables such dynamic and vivid analyses of educa- tional settings, it also enables innovative ways of resisting oppression. Take, for example, deeply embedded sexist talk and practices among students in a classroom setting. One could study, from the standpoint of critical communication pedagogy, how sexism plays out in classrooms in ways that reproduce and normalize it. As a result, such a study offers a lens by which to understand the complexities involved in how gender gets enacted in that classroom and beyond; this information can provide the basis for creating new policies, new ways of teaching, and new ways of thinking about gender in the classroom that might provide different possibilities for enacting gender.

The classroom is often cited as a place ripe for social change—it is a place where progressive change has historically been enacted (think school integration, for example). As such, critical com- munication pedagogy is hopeful in part because it builds on a long-standing tradition of making edu- cation a site where one learns not only content, but ways of being critically reflexive citizens of the world. Here lies a source of its potential as a com- munication theory.

John T. Warren

See also Autoethnography; Constitutive View of Communication; Critical Race Theory; Critical Theory; Culture and Communication; Ethnomethodology; Feminist Communication Theories; Power and Power Relations; Social Construction of Reality

Further Readings

Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2007). Critical communication pedagogy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed: Thirtieth anniversary edition. New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1970)

Nainby, K. E., Warren, J. T., & Bollinger, C. M. (2003). Articulating contact in the classroom: Toward a

constitutive focus in critical pedagogy. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3, 198–212.

Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some unasked questions. Communication Education, 41, 1–25.

Sprague, J. (1994). Ontology, politics, and instructional communication research: Why we can’t just “agree to disagree” about power? Communication Education, 43, 273–290.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.

CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

Critical constructivism stands for the merging of constructivist or constructionist views with criti- cal epistemology developed by the Frankfurt School. This involves combining ideas related to how people think while interacting with the social environment (constructivist) or how meanings are socially derived (constructionist) and impacted by power structures in society, as well as the ethical consequences of people’s choices (critical). The term critical constructivism was first used in the 1960s in the field of education and then, with similar meaning, in psychology. Later, critical constructivism was incorporated into political science and sociology; it found its way into com- munication studies with the work of Andrew Feenberg, Maria Bakardjieva, and Milton Campos. This entry describes these lines of work and their confluence.

Origins in Education

The critical constructivist school in education was built around the tradition known as critical thinking, which emerged from the application in education of informal logic approaches, such as those of the British logician Stephen Toulmin, who became disil- lusioned with the power of formal logic as a tool for understanding commonsense communication. He developed a method for analyzing arguments based on constructs analogous to those found in legal pro- cedures and tribunals, and this method led to the development of the informal logic school in the United States in the early 1960s.

217Critical Constructivism

The general idea of the critical constructivists in education was to integrate these contributions regarding informal logic to notions of cognitive development, originally based on traditional Piagetian theory and/or contemporary cognitive theories. According to this view, critical-thinking abilities can scaffold the development of more and more complex cognitive abilities through well-designed pedagogical activities based on argumentation. Certain educational strategies would “wake up” children’s awareness of the underlying logical structures of their own reason- ing through critical inquiry. It was believed that good teaching designed to enhance critical think- ing could speed up cognitive development, that pedagogical activities developed on this basis would enhance learning.

Strategies of this kind were further developed by the introduction of sociocognitive approaches in North America, adapted largely from the learning theory by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Some cognitive psychologists and educators, who came to believe in the integration of Vygotsky’s psychology with cognitive theories issued from cybernetics (such as the information processing theory), found ways to assess argumentation as a critical process of construction.

Thus, the critical component of this educational tradition refers not to power structures in society but to critical-thinking processes within the indi- vidual’s discourse. Although these educational applications introduced the term critical construc- tivism, the term took an entirely different turn in communication, as reflected in the critiques of technology offered by Feenberg and Bakardjieva.

Feenberg’s and Bakardjieva’s Critique of Technology

The term critical constructivism—which could also be called critical constructionism—was first published in communication studies in 1999 in the foundational book Questioning Technology, by the American philosopher of technology Andrew Feenberg. Later, and very curiously, Maria Bakardjieva proposed the term independently in her 2002 dissertation for a doctorate in communi- cation (she also has a PhD in sociology), which led to the world-renowned book The Internet in Everyday Life, published in 2005. Today, Feenberg

and Bakardjieva are the most important scholars of this tradition.

Both share common ground with the educational critical constructivist approaches developed by the critical thinking school in terms of a view toward change and a focus on the idea of construction to account for the process of understanding. But these scholars depart from this common ground in their approach to critique. From their perspective, critical constructivism refers to the integration of the social construction of reality theory, proposed within the tradition of the sociology of science and technology, and critical theory, namely, the contributions of the German philosophers Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas.

According to Feenberg, the critical constructiv- ist approach criticizes deterministic views, accord- ing to which technology shapes society by itself, silently or independently of major political and cultural developments. Feenberg makes three prop- ositions: (1) Technology is defined by a social process in which technology choices are influenced by a variety of contextual criteria; (2) this social process satisfies various cultural needs related to technology; and (3) competitive definitions of technology mirror conflictive views of society. Thus, technology choices are influenced by power arrangements in society.

This approach draws from the critique of tradi- tional Marxism made by Frankfurt intellectuals, namely Herbert Marcuse. According to Feenberg, Marcuse understands social progress as mirroring historical conflicts and artistic representations that are based on experience, that provide meaning to art, and that place technology at the core of social processes. This approach is consistent with the views of Jürgen Habermas about democracy as an intersubjective process of understanding (created through interaction with others), through which communication integrates public and private realms of life. Feenberg synthesizes these ideas but dis- tances himself from Habermas because of the lat- ter’s supposed silence about the role of technology, thoroughly discussed by Marcuse. In addition, Feenberg absorbed a number of Michel Foucault’s reservations about critical theory and embraced the critique of technological determinism from the actor network theory by Bruno Latour, one of the main theorists who shaped the constructionist tradition. Feenberg’s critical constructivism is,

218 Critical Constructivism

thus, a philosophical critique of technology inte- grating the contributions of postmodern structural- ism and critical theory.

Maria Bakardjieva has made contributions to advance this line of inquiry with in-depth reflec- tions derived from extensive empirical work done with Internet users that highlights the importance of a normative or prescriptive approach in social communication processes. Her empirical research provided qualitative evidence that Habermas’s cri- tique of reason can be regarded as a suitable pro- gressive framework to understand people’s experiences with technology. Moreover, in line with Feenberg’s critique, Bakardjieva points to the fact that the uses of technology in the practice of communication empower people, provided that the conditions of democratic engagement are met.

The work of Feenberg and Bakardjieva do not constitute the formulation of a new communica- tion theory, but rather a philosophical and socio- logical inquiry grounded on empirical studies and critical social and political intervention into the role of technology in contemporary society. In other words, their work proposes a critical con- structivist view of science and technology that uses the social construction of reality to show the role of active citizens in political engagement. Empowered citizens can build democratic societies by shaping and using communication technology to change society and achieve democracy and jus- tice. Feenberg’s and Bakardjieva’s approaches to communication do provide insightful contribu- tions about active normative models in which technology could be meaningfully integrated in life and in society. Milton Campos took critical con- structivism in a somewhat different direction in his ecology of meanings theory.

Campos’s Ecology of Meanings Communication Theory

Milton N. Campos used the term critical construc- tivism, also independently, in 2005, when he pro- posed a general critical constructivist theory of communication known as ecology of meanings. Communication is seen as a biological mechanism that enables a person to make sense of the self and the outside world. The term ecology stands for blended natural, or biological, and cultural inter- action processes. As for meaning, it is understood

as the process of permanently making “sense” of the others and of the world, which is different from the semiotic idea of signification, in which meaning is simply the denotation of a word or symbol. According to the theory of ecology of meanings, communication should be understood as a trans- versal discipline that crosses all others because it is both psychological and social and because it accounts for necessary universal and particular contingent knowledge. Communication is the foundation of all scientific disciplines and all forms of human expression (e.g., art, common sense, codes) because it is simultaneously a condition and a result of all possible human knowledge.

Ecologies of meanings can be considered as open, dynamic, and progressive symbolic uni- verses, analogous to the expansion of the physical universe or to the expansion of the human popu- lation. Ecologies of meanings have structure and dynamics. The structure lying beneath develop- mental and evolutionary interactive processes can be explained as three interconnected layers that evolve altogether along time: (1) internal cogni- tive and affective structures; (2) consciousness and will; and (3) the external natural and social environments. The internal cognitive and affect- ive structures emerge from the functioning of the brain. Underlying psychological states enable communication in the social environment. Consciousness and will shape moral values within the person (morality) and action outside the per- son (ethics and politics).

The external natural and social environments on one hand provide the conditions of existence such as the accessibility to material and spiritual resources needed for development (food, shelter, and care, as well as ideas) and, on the other hand, trigger actions on the world that lead to trans- formation and change.

As for the dynamics, the above-mentioned three interconnected structural and functional lay- ers account for the concept of biological construc- tion advanced by Jean Piaget and the notion of cultural molding of meanings and judgment making underlying Jean-Blaise Grize’s and Jürgen Habermas’s works. Dynamics express how peo- ple, while communicating through language (e.g., spoken, written, symbolic, bodily), construct and co-construct images of themselves, of one another, and of the world. These constructions and

219Critical Constructivism

co-constructions are accounts or glimpses of pro- gressively represented reality that are reflexively and critically assessed. Interpretations resulting from these processes, or configuration of mean- ings, can be just ephemeral through assimilation of outside influences or more permanent through both assimilation and accommodation to the social environment, leading the individual to change himself or herself and the world.

Ecology of meanings is, thus, a critical con- structive communication theory accounting for interactions of configurations of meanings that express constructed and co-constructed images of the world. The theory traverses both the universal (ever-moving, organic, logical structures) and the situational contents of communication that emerge from culture, including language, history, geogra- phy, and other cultural factors.

Campos integrates the theories of Piaget, Grize, and Habermas to describe different layers of ecolo- gies of meanings:

1. Piaget’s model of values exchange accounts for the biology of interaction in which the exchange of affective and moral values evolves in circum- stances of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Equili- brium is a state in which the individual truly cooperates and one in which moral values are con- sistent with equality and democracy. Disequilibrium results from constraint, as when a ruling authority imposes his or her will on others, and moral values of manipulation and control prevail.

2. Grize’s theory of schematization accounts for the sense-making process that emerges in communi- cation exchanges. Researchers can use the natural logic developed by Grize to study the thinking oper- ations, expressed by language, that lead to the con- struction and co-construction of the discourse, to extract ethical possibilities from the language used. In terms of moral values, for example, when a presi- dent announces to the citizens of a given country, “I decided to go to war,” the predicate “to decide to go” reflects a double moral stance (to make a deci- sion and to decide in favor of disequilibrium). This stance has psychological and social consequences.

3. Habermas’s theory of communicative action accounts for the political inscription of moral behavior in communicative action that projects values in how language is used. Habermas’s

“taxonomy” of reason expressed in discourse includes two poles—the teleological, or instru- mental reason (standing for disequilibrium, con- straint), and communicative (equilibrium, cooperation). Communicators, thus, do have a choice in terms of what moral behavior and sub- sequent social actions will be taken.

These three theories are taken altogether in the ecology of meanings theory in that they allow a holistic understanding of the communication pro- cess. According to the ecology of meanings theory, communication, as all biological mechanisms, is a never-ending, progressive process of disequilib- rium, in which interlocutors search for equilib- rium, fighting for autonomy instead of multiplicity, and shared understanding instead of conflict. Communication thus crosses science, philosophy, the arts, religion, and the daily-lived world.

This transversal discipline, considered as a knowledge field, needs formal and informal meth- ods to provide the necessary ways to verify and interpret progressive communicative constructions, co-constructions, reconstructions, and so on. The knowledge scale is not only that of science: it goes from the phenomenological experience of living and social-political action in the world to the pos- sibility of symbolically expressing the empirical world through the mysterious forms of logic and mathematics. Whatever symbolic course of action people take, it leads to communicative behavior and ethical choices that have moral consequences. Communication is, in fact, an Ethics that triggers the amazing human ability of constructing multi- ple universes of love, understanding, and coopera- tion, or hate, war, and destruction.

Milton N. Campos

See also Archeology and Genealogy; Argumentation Theories; Communication and Language Acquisition and Development; Constructivism; Critical Theory; Cybernetics; Frankfurt School; Social Construction of Reality

Further Readings

Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. London: Sage.

Campos, M. N. (2007). Ecology of meanings: A critical constructivist communication model. Communication Theory, 17, 386–410.

220 Critical Discourse Analysis

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.

Feenberg, A. (2003). Modernity theory and technology studies: Reflections on bridging the gap. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and technology (pp. 73–104). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Grize, J.-B. (1996). Logique naturelle & communications [Natural logic & communications]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Thomas McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Piaget, J. (1995). Sociological studies (T. Brown, R. Campbell, N. Emler, M. Ferrari, M. Gribetz, R. Kitchener, et al., Trans.). London: Routledge.

Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

CRITICAL CULTURAL STUDIES

See Cultural Studies

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Critical discourse analysis represents a variety of theories, methodologies, and definitions. Encompassing the theoretical concepts of dis- course theory and critical theory, as well as sug- gesting a method for uncovering the relationships among these various perspectives, critical dis- course analysis (abbreviated as CDA in most con- texts) is the study of texts, speech, and visual images to uncover the shared meanings that con- tribute to, or represent, social structures and ide- ologies. CDA is distinguished from discourse analysis by its explicit political and social goals; it assumes that discourse structures constitute social inequality and injustice and seeks to expose those structures in both the production and reception of written, spoken, and/or visual messages. CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing how power relations, inequality, and dominance are created and perpetuated through discourse within various political, social, and historical contexts. By unmask- ing the workings of such discourse practices, CDA

scholars hope to subvert—or at least resist—those practices in the interests of social justice.

CDA does not provide one single or specific theory or research methodology. Rather, various theories and research methods have influenced the development of CDA. Epistemological theories, social theories, sociopsychological theories, dis- course theories, and linguistic theories, to name only a handful, can be found in CDA. In essence, CDA brings a variety of theories into play by focusing both on the micro aspects of discourse (e.g., words, sentences, and images) and the macro aspects of social structures (e.g., production and reception of texts within a broader order of dis- course). On the micro level, CDA assumes that power manifests in the usage patterns of words and images and that individuals participate in these construction processes in their use of lan- guage. On the macro level, CDA assumes that our identities (subjectivities) are constructed in and through the ways we produce and consume dis- courses and that language constructs our social and cultural worlds. Within both contexts, CDA assumes that social, cultural, identity, and power structures are not fixed—that changes in language usage can and do change that which is constructed. This social change is the goal of CDA.

The key terms of CDA are discourse and criti- cal. In most usage related to CDA, discourse is distinguished from texts, which are specific utter- ances, images, or writings. Discourse is an overall form of knowledge and an arena that delimits cer- tain expression. According to Michel Foucault, whose work influenced the development of CDA, the use of language and words is regulated through discursive formations—conventions and rules that constrain our knowledge and the meanings of things. Discourse, then, is the arena in which social relations, practices, and behaviors are constructed and maintained.

Concerns regarding the manifestation of power and the workings of ideology characterize the critical aspect of CDA. These concerns can be traced to the work of Marxists and the influence of Frankfurt School scholars who argued that certain ideologies are conveyed through textual and cul- tural forms. Ideology is an important concept in CDA because it is through ideology that power and inequality are maintained. Textual production and reception are social processes. The meanings

221Critical Discourse Analysis

of texts are often encoded by those in power, although the meanings and effects of language are also products of negotiation between producers, consumers, and the broader social/cultural con- text. Texts, then, can be open to contestation as various individuals and groups—producers and receivers—struggle over meanings and effects. The role of ideology, however, is to naturalize domi- nant structures so that the processes of meaning making and social construction are obscured. CDA aims to make these processes visible by ask- ing whether texts serve powerful interests or struc- tures of domination, by evaluating whether one representation or identity is selected or constructed in particular ways, and by asking who produces the representations and what their motivations might be.

Finally, CDA considers the social, political, cul- tural, and historical contexts of discourses and how discourses have evolved or developed over time. It is important to understand context in order to analyze intertextuality, a concept used by Norman Fairclough to analyze the structure and organization of texts in relationship to other texts and their contexts. Intertextuality refers to the ways that texts are implicated in other texts or draw on prior texts. It is through an analysis of intertextuality that the relationship between texts and social structures may be uncovered. This analysis becomes especially meaningful when the various contexts in which discourse practices and texts occur are taken into consideration.

Concerns and Focus of Critical Discourse Analysis

CDA has several intellectual traditions that have produced various forms of analysis over the years. In addition to Marxist theory and the insights of the Frankfurt School, the work of Jürgen Habermas, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Stuart Hall, and British cultural studies scholars have influenced the direction and concerns of CDA since its beginnings in the 1970s. A group of schol- ars in the United Kingdom, who were influenced by the work of linguist Michael Halliday (although some used approaches from Noam Chomsky, the work of Roland Barthes, and early French semioti- cians), developed an approach called critical linguis- tics in the 1970s. Critical linguistics sought to analyze

texts as instruments of social and political power. Borrowing from the structuralist–functionalist tradi- tion and Russian formalism, critical linguists used words and sentences as their units of analysis. They structured their interpretations in three areas iden- tified by Halliday: the ideational dimension (which is similar to the ideological focus on the relation- ship between language and social structure); the interpersonal function (which is that aspect of lan- guage that defines how relationships are structured in language—whether one-way or two-way, argu- ment, or dialogue, for instance—and how identi- ties are constructed); and the textual function (which considers the structure and form of the text itself and its genre). Despite the three-pronged analysis, critics charged that this approach was too centered on the text itself and did not consider the practices of production or the possible interpreta- tions of texts, which would lead to an analysis of meaning as changeable and as the result of social struggle. Building on these concerns, Australian social semioticians in the 1980s and 1990s incor- porated poststructuralist ideas as well as the insights of French structuralism and semiotics into their work and developed a focus on intertextuality and the ways that discourses constitute identities and subjectivities.

Norman Fairclough built on the work of the Australian scholars to produce his theory of dis- course and social change. He combined the mostly linguistic study of words and texts with an empha- sis on Foucault’s notion of discursive formations to study more specifically the ways that texts are implicated in social and cultural forms. In the late 1980s, Fairclough developed an analytical frame- work for researching language in relation to power and ideology and in relation to social and cultural change. He also suggested that mass media are powerful sites for research both in their use of lan- guage and in their manifestation of particular routines—or practices—that influence the character and meaning of a text. In addition, Fairclough argued that discourses needed to be analyzed within the broader arena of discursive formations and their interrelations (what he called orders of dis- course). Thus, CDA expanded to include not just individual texts (and the internal linguistic structure of texts) but also the ways in which they intersect with other texts and with other discourses to form powerful, constitutive orders of discourse.

222 Critical Discourse Analysis

Other scholars have contributed to the theoreti- cal and methodological development of CDA. In the late 1980s, Michel Pêcheux, who also was influenced by Althusser and Foucault, developed the notion of interdiscursivity, noting that various discourses can interact and intersect (for instance, the discourses of economics and politics). During this same period, Teun van Dijk developed cogni- tive models in order to understand how individuals process the meanings of texts and how meanings circulate socially and culturally. Van Dijk is known for his critical analysis of discourses that encode prejudice and racism, for example. This contribu- tion added to the theoretical base of CDA that concerns itself with the reception and consumption of texts as well as the theoretical concerns regard- ing the ideological power of texts. The Vienna School of CDA in the late 1990s focused on lan- guage use in institutional settings and introduced the historical perspective. In addition, scholars in this tradition study the construction of identity at national and transnational levels. Scholars associ- ated with this school are Ruth Wodak and Gilbert Weiss. At the end of the 1990s, CDA scholars began to turn away from the purely linguistic analysis of texts to include visual texts and the meaning of images. This “semiotic turn” expanded the range of CDA studies to include film, televi- sion, and music.

Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis

Practitioners of CDA use different tools or methods for uncovering the mechanisms by which discourse functions. As defined above, texts are the primary unit of analysis—whether spoken, written, or visual. Analysts consider the various representations in texts, the framing techniques, linguistic features such as grammatical structure and modality, what is excluded from the text, how individuals are implicated in the text, and how texts interact with other texts in a discursive field. The form of a text—or its genre—is also considered. Genres are identifiable, repeated forms of communication such as the news broadcast, the television Western, political speeches, textbooks, business letters, and so on. These forms of communication follow cer- tain conventions; as such, they are seen to have ideological effects. The validity of a message, for instance, may be strengthened if it is delivered in the

form of a policy or newscast because individuals are used to hearing and responding to messages of these genres in particular ways. In addition, specific ideas or discourses may be found repeatedly in certain genres; for example, television Westerns feature discourses of gender and heroism; political speeches may contain discourses of patriotism and public service. Thus, in addition to the actual messages contained within them, genres communicate ideas and meanings that are shared socially and culturally because of the form in which they are delivered.

Fairclough’s approach to CDA considers three levels of analysis: the text itself; the processes of producing (creating, writing, speaking) and receiv- ing (reading, hearing, interpreting) texts (what he calls discursive practices); and the larger social con- text in which texts are created and consumed. Texts perform the ideational and interpersonal aspects identified by Halliday—that is, they convey certain representations of the world and establish relations among participants. In addition, they provide the building blocks for identity construction, both in the ways that people identify themselves and how they are identified by others. Discursive practices refer to the rules and conventions by which texts are produced and consumed. One may consider, for instance, the economic considerations of producers who tailor their products to fit audience demands as well as the viewing or reading habits of particu- lar demographic groups. But it also implicates the more subtle, socially conditioned ways that mes- sages are produced, circulate, and are interpreted— why some messages predominate, are taken as common sense, or are difficult to dismantle (ideas regarding gender, race, and age are examples). Texts and their practices of production and con- sumption are considered within the broader arena of discursive formations and interdiscursivity (orders of discourse) to uncover their ideological and social construction effects. Finally, a consideration of spe- cific political, historical, and social contexts pro- vides a necessary frame for understanding the power and meaning of texts and discourse.

In spite of myriad, interdisciplinary approaches, CDA is unified around basic principles, identified by Ruth Wodak and Norman Fairclough, which include an orientation toward social problems such as racism, sexism, and social change; eclecti- cism in theories and methods; investigation “from the inside,” which means that analysis begins with

223Critical Ethnography

the textual artifact first, rather than making the data fit a theory; consideration of intertextual and interdiscursive relationships; an accounting of his- torical context; specification of the precise method of analysis used in a given study (due to the eclec- tic approach); and application of the results of analysis—often toward the goal of changing oppressive discursive and social practices.

Janet M. Cramer

See also Constitutive View of Communication; Critical Theory; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Language and Communication; Materiality of Discourse; Meaning Theories; Social Justice

Further Readings

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. New York: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. New York: Edward Arnold.

Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Language as ideology. New York: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the press. New York: Routledge.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY

Critical ethnography is a way to study communi- ties and cultures that seeks to dismantle unfair power hierarchies, promote emancipation, and reduce the oppression of underprivileged people worldwide. Ethnographers who use this form of research claim that it is not enough to report “objective” findings on peoples’ cultures but feel instead that it is the responsibility of an ethnogra- pher to engage in various forms of political action on behalf of and together with the group they study.

Critical ethnography is not a theory per se, but rather a research strategy and methodology that rely heavily on the theoretical foundations of criti- cal theory. Relatedly, critical ethnography is a tool for the construction of theory and for the transla- tion of critical theory into practice. In essence

critical ethnography is a way to do critical theory, or as many scholars have stated, the practice of critical theory. Critical ethnography, then, is a methodological and practical undertaking through which critical ethnographers question the bound- aries between theory and method.

The entire process of critical ethnographic research is based on critical principles: From the various ways to collect data to how data are inter- preted and represented to various audiences to the ethical involvement of researchers and collabora- tors to the application and generation of theory and knowledge, the end goal of critical ethnogra- phy is to create transformational change. This entry will examine the theoretical foundations, methodological processes, and ethical commitment of critical ethnographers. As a resource for exam- ples it will look at the critical ethnographic work of Dwight Conquergood, who in his life conducted critical ethnographies among the urban poor of Chicago, within a Southeast Asian refugee camp, and at vigils held at prisons for death row inmates on the eve of their executions.

Theoretical Foundations

Critical ethnography shares several things with interpretive, noncritical approaches. It explores, describes, and interprets norms, rules, everyday rituals, and epistemologies that identify people within a culture or institution. This is done not in order to test hypotheses or even to collect empiri- cal information subject to tests of validity and reli- ability, but rather to better understand social phenomena. Also critical ethnographers are not keen on statistical generalizability but prefer ana- lytical generalizability, which emphasizes the potential of ethnographic research for theoretical development. When ethnographic research allows scholars to create and expand concepts or under- stand generic processes or social systems, ethno- graphic research can be said to have value for theoretical/analytical development.

However, where critical ethnography diverges from interpretive ethnography is in the epistemo- logical and theoretical orientation of the ethnogra- pher and his or her role as an engaged citizen, activist, and scholar. Critical ethnography seeks to move beyond mere description and interpretation and move instead toward a critical approach that

224 Critical Ethnography

seeks to question hegemonic discourses that allow certain groups to exert power over others, to equalize power structures, and to criticize the actions and policies faced by people enmeshed in subordinate relations. In his work, for instance, Dwight Conquergood took it on himself to testify in court as an expert witness on the groups he studied on several occasions.

Historically, ethnographers—even many inter- pretive ones—have adopted an ethnographic approach based on detachment from the people under study, the desire to maintain and gather value-free knowledge, and the relativist view that cultures are different but equal. In contrast, critical ethnographers’ main assumption and interest are in the ways cultures are positioned unequally in power relations. Critical ethnography takes its roots from critical theory, following in particular the idea that institutions create unequal power structures and produce a false consciousness in which the people cannot see this and actually work to maintain the status quo. This translates into full-blown attempts to create communities and relationships based on ideals of equality, as Dwight Conquergood did by forming surrogate families both among the Hmong in Southeast Asia and in Albany Park.

Much of critical ethnography’s underpinnings are rooted in other theoretical traditions, such as critical race theory, feminist theory, queer theory, postcolonialist theory, and critical performance pedagogy. It follows that much of critical ethnogra- phy is based on theoretical perspectives that valo- rize the value of class, race and ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, and nationality.

Methodological Process

Methodology is study and reflection on methods of data collection and strategies of data analysis and representation. Whereas methods are practical tech- niques, methodologies are theoretical endeavors. Thus a particular methodology, ethnographic meth- odology for example, is the overall theory and para- digm that guide the ethnographer throughout the research process, including the research question, the development of a research design and proposal, the collection of data, data analysis, and presenta- tion of the research. Methodological reflections— just like theoretical reflections—act as guides to

help researchers conduct research and move through the process of engaging in scholarship.

More specifically, critical ethnographers’ method includes participant observation and vari- ous types of interviewing. Ethnographers collect these kinds of data together with, at times, textual data to produce an account of a community or phenomenon under study. Other methods, less frequently used, are surveys, diaries, personal introspection, and other similar forms of nonpar- ticipant observation. It is important to emphasize that these are methods and not methodologies. In the following paragraphs, this broad realm of activity is divided into three areas: collection of data, data analysis, and representation of data.

Collecting Data

A critical approach to ethnography begins with the selection of a research site and the collection of data from the field. Critical ethnographers select research sites where they feel injustices need to be brought to light and wrongs need to be righted—as Conquergood’s selection of research topics shows. Thus, rather than the need to accumulate knowl- edge for knowledge’s sake, critical ethnographic research designs begin with the impetus of putting critical theory into practice.

With regard to data collection, like all forms of ethnography, critical ethnography revolves around the method of participant observation conducted within a clearly bounded research setting. Ethnographers go directly into the communities that they are studying or collaborating with and interact with them in order to gather research data and solve practical problems. Ethnographers take notes, talk to people, live within the community or as close as possible to it, and spend a great deal of time learning about (and with) the people or phe- nomenon they are studying. At times this may also result in ethnographers teaching and sharing knowledge. Conquergood, for example, used per- formances to teach public health and sanitation principles to Hmong refugees in Thailand.

Critical ethnographers utilize an inductive theo- retical approach to collecting and interpreting data. This means that ethnographers go into the field without the need to test a preformulated hypothesis and without preconceived notions, categories, themes, or conclusions in mind. Thus the research is

225Critical Ethnography

an emergent process in which categories, themes, and analysis take shape as the research is in progress. The only limitation to this induction comes from the researcher’s moral stance, which is unchangeably grounded in communitarian ethics and the will to suppress oppression and injustice. Thus, in opposi- tion to other forms of ethnography, critical ethnog- raphy is driven first and foremost by a theoretical perspective, philosophy, or ideology. Being so criti- cal and still maintaining an inductive approach is often very complex.

Where interpretive and critical ethnography diverge in relation to collecting data is in their approach to collaborative dialogue. Coparticipa- tion and collaboration are often crucial in critical ethnography. Critical ethnographers believe that it is ethical and morally essential for research to take a collaborative and participatory approach. Collaboration is not only part of the data collec- tion but begins from the research design and moves into the data analysis and representation of research. Critical ethnographers wish to enact a multivocal process in which all perspectives are expressed. This means that the data collection is dialogic and democratic, which means involving research participants at every step of the process.

One key aspect in data collection is the constant reflection, negotiation, and renegotiation of the researcher’s position and power differences in rela- tion to informants. Critical ethnographers realize that power difference between researcher and informants cannot be entirely eliminated but believe that the reflection process allows research- ers to understand and manage how power differ- ences influence the data gathered. This reflexive process allows the researcher to see how outside forces create the culture under study, beginning from the study itself.

Data Analysis

After data collection, ethnographers engage in data analysis. However, unlike much of conven- tional ethnography, which is interested in the for- mation of theoretical categories or even—in the case of some realist ethnography—lawlike state- ments, critical ethnography attempts to avoid reducing lived experience to excessively abstract categories. Instead, critical ethnography seeks to expose the complexity and nuances of everyday

experiences and to unravel and dismantle the cat- egories of knowledge that structure those experi- ences. This requires critical ethnographers to approach the data analysis process using a reflex- ive approach that allows researchers to understand their position in the research process. In this sense, gathering and sharing knowledge and doing theory become enlightened and situated practices, rather than constructions by fiat.

Reflexivity enables the researcher to examine oneself and one’s position during data analysis. This process reveals one’s background, history, and daily experiences and how these factors ulti- mately influence the ethnographer’s epistemologi- cal views, theoretical perspectives, and assumptions. Not only does critical ethnography take on an emic approach (viewing things from the perspec- tive of the participants), but it also requires that in order to dismantle ideologies, it is necessary to use an etic approach (researcher’s perspective) in order to reflect on biases that shape the process of con- ducting and writing ethnographies.

Data analysis is done inductively, from specific data to general conclusions. Working from an inductive frame requires the researcher to address research questions and analysis as the research unfolds and takes form. Thus categories and pat- terns are shaped as the data collection proceeds rather than being predetermined and fixed.

Representation of Data

A third element of the methodological process is reflection on the writing of ethnographic data and how informants are represented through the words and eyes of the researcher. Methodological discussions about how to present the data—the genres and media of ethnographic presentation— are an important part of the writings of critical theorists. Whereas many academics write up research using dispassionate, impersonal, scien- tific prose that disconnects informants from the audience, critical ethnographers reject this type of representation and instead seek to create ethnog- raphies that engage their readers and informants directly, experimenting with different genres and media. Critical ethnographers in their research and writing openly display a standpoint, political moti- vation, and the partiality of research practices. They seek to create a plural and inclusive text that infuses

226 Critical Organizational Communication

a variety of voices rather than just the dominant scientific voice of the ethnographer. Conquergood’s several essays and staged performances—for instance his work on the death penalty and what he called lethal theater—utilized this approach to garner attention for the plight of death row inmates.

Collaboration with informants on all aspects of the research process is essential for developing a multivocal, or inclusive, text. In many cases critical ethnographers ask informants to participate in the entire development of the research, including the final writing or other forms of production and performance, in turn creating co-constructed texts. Informant collaboration allows the development of a representational style that includes the voices of the people rather than excludes them under the guise of anonymity. Following the lead of critical theory interventions that blur the boundaries across disciplines, some scholars purposefully seek less traditional academic prose and engage in experimental writing styles seen more in the humanities than in the social sciences. For exam- ple, a critical ethnographer may use poetic stanzas in order to represent conversations or interviews with informants. This is usually done to enable rhythms of dialogue and speech to flow naturally, allowing the interview and persons involved to come to life. Other common styles adopted are performative writing styles as well as actual dra- mas and performances to present the study, as well as—again in the case of Conquergood’s work— films and documentaries. In most cases the voices of the informants, ethnographer, institutions, and other informants are all included in the text, creat- ing a plural perspective of voices that disperse the authority of the academic voice.

April Vannini

See also Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical Theory; Cultural Identity Theory; Cultural Studies; Ethnography of Communication; Performance Theories; Performative Writing; Power and Power Relations; Privilege

Further Readings

Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication Monographs, 58, 179–194.

Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Critical organizational communication is con- cerned with understanding issues of power in organizational settings. Critical organizational communication studies now cover a wide array of more specific approaches to and theories about the study of organizational communication, draw- ing significantly from critical modernism, post- structural, and feminist scholarship on the subject. Critical approaches to organizational communica- tion first were developed in the 1980s, with the interpretive turn in organizational communication theory. These approaches became increasingly complex as they were influenced by and became mutually intertwined with the emergence of femi- nist thought, the popularity of poststructural approaches, and ever-widening empirical contexts for inquiry.

The Interpretive Turn

In the 1980s many scholars began to highlight the centrality of subjectivity, meaning, and context in organizational communication, thereby paying attention to the cultural life of organizations. Formerly, scholarship had been built primarily on a container metaphor for organizations, which entailed looking at how communication, in the form of messages, was transmitted “in” preexist- ing organizations. However, the interpretive turn led scholars to become especially interested in examining connections between communication and the ontology, or nature, of organizations, that is, how communication actually created the appar- ently solid things that we called organizations. Thus, scholars started taking apart phenomena that were earlier taken for granted and began to look at how they were communicatively con- structed. For instance, instead of measuring how much workers participated in decision making in

227Critical Organizational Communication

their organizations, scholars interested in studying participation began to study how workers ascribed definite meanings to participation and then acted on those meanings. And so, the interpretive turn led to the demise of the idea of an organization as a container and led instead to an abiding concern with understanding the connections between orga- nizations and the rest of society.

Critical approaches grew quickly with the advent of the interpretive turn because power was such a valuable concept in enabling us to under- stand why particular meanings came to be domi- nant, why organizations were constructed in specific ways, and what that had to do with the larger political economy of capitalism. While scholars had always studied power in organiza- tional settings, with the advent of the interpretive approach, power became an altogether multidi- mensional concept. Researchers became increas- ingly eclectic, drawing from such sources as the community power debates in sociology in order to explain why individuals and collectives did not agitate against visibly oppressive conditions. As scholars paid attention to such acquiescence to control, they expanded their conception of power to include not just issues of obedience and direct control through such mechanisms as reward and punishment, but also social and cultural norms, discipline, and unobtrusive forms of control. In the process, four terms became particularly impor- tant in critical conceptions of organizational life: concertive control, hegemony, systematically dis- torted communication, and identification.

A First Generation of Concepts

The four terms—concertive control, hegemony, systematically distorted communication, and identification—might be taken as the cornerstones of a first generation of critical organizational com- munication studies, which still have currency today. The term concertive control was developed by Phil Tompkins, George Cheney, and their asso- ciates, as an extension of the work of Richard Edwards, in order to describe a form of organiza- tional control that did not rely on coercion, bureaucracy, or even technology. They described early systems of workplace control as “simple” in that they were based on arbitrary and ad hoc rules set by owners. The advent of the industrial age

resulted in the development of more elaborate sys- tems of control that were technical and/or bureau- cratic. Technical systems of control were exemplified by the Fordist production line, which rigidly con- trolled the speed and output of work, even as it deskilled workers, forcing them to learn specific tasks at the expense of developing their knowledge base. Bureaucratic systems of control are exempli- fied by large modern organizations such as univer- sities, which involve formal, codified, rationalized systems of rules and regulations that govern con- duct. Concertive control systems, on the other hand, are epitomized by organizations that involve significant amounts of teamwork, control via a system of informal values, and norms and codes that are constructed by workers themselves and that serve to regulate their behavior. While it is evident that simple, technical, and bureaucratic control systems are made possible through com- munication processes between superiors and sub- ordinates, it is especially easy to see how concertive control systems are constructed through communi- cative dynamics among employees.

The term hegemony, coined by Antonio Gramsci to describe antagonistic and mutually negotiated relationships between social classes, was adopted by organizational communication scholars such as Dennis Mumby to describe the idea that organiza- tional members might consent to the domination of powerful groups over them. This was found to happen where an apparent consensus about the cultural meanings of key workplace practices and vocabularies benefits one group more than others. Hegemony is seen to operate through ideologies, or systems of values and beliefs, and discourses, or broad patterns in talk and text, that, taken together, produce social relationships. Thus, criti- cal scholars interested in hegemonic work practices are prone to deconstruct, or show alternative ways of understanding, the meanings of dominant orga- nizational values such as excellence or hard work in terms of which groups benefit most from those particular constructions. A specific focus in early research on the subject was to examine how orga- nizational and broader vocabularies and patterns of communication served to further the interests of management, an idea called managerialism, which in turn was taken to refer to conceptions of orga- nizations as primarily sites of profit rather than cooperation or community.

228 Critical Organizational Communication

A third key term in the first generation of criti- cal organizational communication studies was systematically distorted communication, a term coined by Jürgen Habermas and developed in the context of organizational studies by scholars like Stan Deetz and Dennis Mumby. In Habermasian terms, systematically distorted communication refers to the instrumental manipulation of lan- guage by the systemic interests of money and power that result in the corruption of the lifeworld, or our everyday networks of communicative prac- tice. Systematically distorted communication is achieved through a broad plethora of strategies— universalization, for example, or the treatment of sectional organizational interests as universal; dis- qualification, or treating the subject or source as petty and trivial; and neutralization, or the treat- ment of topics as not having any kind of political significance. Stan Deetz’s early work on the subject focused particularly on what he called the corpo- rate colonization of the lifeworld—a phrase that drew attention to the deep structuring of corporate interests into the very fabric of society and that affected where individuals lived, how they chose to educate themselves and their children, the structure of their community relationships, and their expec- tations of government and public life.

A fourth key term in early critical organizational communication might be said to be identification, or the rhetorical process through which organiza- tions persuaded their members to construct their selves in alignment with the organization’s key goals and values. The term was made popular by George Cheney, who used rhetorical critic Kenneth Burke’s work to launch an entire tradition of rhe- torical inquiry in organizational communication. Cheney argued that organizations most often per- suaded members through persuasive techniques such as building common ground over subjects and issues (thesis), identifying an enemy against which members were exhorted to act (antithesis), or sim- ply by assuming a sense of “we” or togetherness. Identification, said Cheney, was necessary in con- temporary organizations precisely because of the vast differences in incomes and values between organizational members: In this sense, identifica- tion could be interpreted as a form of systematically distorted communication.

As scholars grappled with a range of concepts that shed light on the communicative character of

systems of domination and oppression, they retained a core concern of classical critical theory with the idea of praxis, or transformative social practice. A key concern of critical scholars is to stay engaged in a practical sense with structures of domination and oppression. This concern has taken many forms in critical organizational communica- tion, most visibly in the attention that critical schol- ars have paid to activism, as well as their extensive theorization of the notion of empowerment—the ability of individuals and communities to engage in decision making and take action in the face of larger power inequities.

A Second Generation of Concepts

In the 1990s, critical organizational communica- tion researchers continued to elaborate on and refine the terms outlined above, and as they did so, they made at least two immensely significant moves that characterized an entire new generation of studies. The first was the explicit recognition of the dialectical character of power. Mumby in par- ticular argued that researchers needed to conceptu- alize broad systems of control and processes of discipline in terms of the conditions for resistance that they engendered. Considerable attention began to be paid to exploring how domination and resis- tance occur simultaneously. Critical organizational communication researchers studied this by map- ping out the conditions and possibilities for resis- tance in systems of disciplinary control, drawing on the work of scholars like Michel Foucault and James Scott as they did so. Among other things, researchers studied how flight attendants resisted patriarchal conventions, how secretaries resisted administrative control, and how service workers reinterpreted and resisted dominant constructions of their jobs.

A second major move that changed critical orga- nizational communication studies in the 1990s was the emergence of a robust corpus of feminist inquiry in organizational communication studies. Feminist researchers capitalized on the ascendance of critical modes of inquiry in organizational communication in order to draw attention to the inherently gen- dered character of organizational formations. As might be evident from the examples in the previous paragraph, feminist researchers paid considerable time and energy to understanding how individuals

229Critical Organizational Communication

resisted patriarchal practices in organizational con- texts, developing sophisticated and nuanced under- standings of self, identity, and voice in the process. Indeed, the term feminism encapsulated a variety of approaches to understanding gender that could not be fully subsumed under the term critical as it was traditionally articulated. Feminist scholars were therefore responsible for bringing more modernist and poststructural approaches into the study of organizations, ultimately putting in dialogue vari- ous philosophical frameworks to question organi- zational processes and practices.

While both poststructuralist and critical late- modern approaches to organizational communica- tion treat the analysis of power as central to the understanding of communicative phenomena, poststructuralist thought makes at least two moves beyond “traditional” critical approaches to orga- nizational communication studies, thereby trans- forming the terrain of critical organizational communication. First, poststructural studies are much more likely to treat power in broad and dif- fuse terms, understanding it not so much as a property of structure evidenced by hierarchy, but as dispersed, decentralized, and disciplinary mech- anisms that operate through language. So, post- structural perspectives are much more likely to treat organizational structure as a property of power, arguing that diffuse systems of disciplinary power themselves constitute what are presented to us as organizational structures. Second, poststruc- tural studies are much more prone to understand- ing selfhood and identity as fragmented, disjointed, and contingent and are thus much more likely to treat individual agency as vulnerable to the point of extinction.

The advent of poststructuralism as a significant influence on critical organizational communication was most evident in the 1990s, in the increasing emphasis of critical scholars on the notion of dis- course and a focus on contradiction and paradox in organizational life. The concept of discourse, which was taken largely from Foucault, referred to the broad expression of power in language, from which our notions of logic, truth, and action are derived. The term allowed researchers to identify multiple and competing logics and truths in orga- nizational life. For instance, discourses of technical excellence in organizations are often seen to com- pete with discourses of managerial efficiency.

Therefore, critical scholars began to take the con- tradictory and paradoxical character of organiza- tional communication seriously, even understanding key critical terms such as participation and empow- erment from the standpoint of paradox, contradic- tion, silence, and voice.

Discourses of Suspicion and Vulnerability

Contemporary critical organizational communica- tion researchers are thus irrevocably influenced by both feminist thought and poststructural sensibili- ties, embracing both a discourse of suspicion and a discourse of vulnerability. Mumby uses the term discourse of suspicion, drawn from Paul Ricoeur’s notion of the hermeneutic of suspicion, to charac- terize scholarship in the area because such studies do not take the surface of organizational life for granted. Instead, their central concern still is to uncover the deeper structural, systemic, and discur- sive power inequities that underlie everyday com- munication practices. Simultaneously, however, a discourse of vulnerability also underlies contempo- rary critical organizational communication scholar- ship. The term vulnerability turns our attention to several related ideas. First, the term refers to what one might call the crisis of representation in that several critical researchers now balk at the claim to unilaterally present their research as the single, uni- fied, authoritative account of a phenomenon. Moreover, the term refers to the idea that organiza- tional and societal discourses make the notion of an agentic, or choice-making, individual extremely problematic. In other words, we very rarely enact unified selves: Our sense of who we are varies and shifts dramatically in different times and situations and is significantly impacted by a range of different discourses; thus, the idea that we make “free” choices is problematic.

Scholars have developed the versatile and hybrid space at the crossroads of discourses of suspicion and discourses of vulnerability to engage in a series of diverse and specific conceptual and empirical moves that are sometimes explicitly linked with critical approaches or sometimes with poststruc- tural approaches. Three are especially worth dis- cussing. First, scholars have studied organizational identity and difference in terms of intersectional- ity, lending credence to the idea that our organiza- tional selves are, in a sense, crystallized from a vast

230 Critical Organizational Communication

set of discourses, including those of gender, sexu- ality, ability, race, age, and class; the study of one of these points of difference necessarily entails the examination of myriad others. For instance, trying to understand popular conceptions of the empow- ered entrepreneur now involves examining how our notions of professional entrepreneurial iden- tity are guided by assumptions about class, gender, and race. Second, scholars have drawn on dis- courses of suspicion as well as vulnerability to examine the effects of economic globalization, and such work has taken a wide variety of forms. For instance, some scholars have analyzed in great detail the potential and problems of corporate social responsibility in the face of looming global environmental crises. Others have examined resis- tance to corporate globalization in the form of contemporary global justice activism, using it as a platform to critique the focus of earlier studies of resistance and power on individualized resistance. Still others have examined the effects of globaliza- tion on the nongovernmental and nonprofit sector, focusing on such issues as information technology and accountability.

Third, critical researchers have written consider- ably about discursively constructed boundaries between life and work in the context of gender, race, sexuality, and class. As they have done so, they have drawn from a wide variety of theories in organizational communication, including structur- ation, relational dialectics, and poststructuralism. Throughout, however, they have paid close atten- tion to a core concern of critical studies, empower- ment, asking questions about how individuals and families enact empowerment in the context of dis- cursive constraints at home and at work. As they have done so, they have created a genre of scholar- ship that blurs the lines between the hitherto dis- tinct domains of inquiry in organizational and family communication, while retaining key critical overtones.

In sum, what might now be called critical orga- nizational communication has grown increasingly eclectic over the years, with wide-ranging and mul- tidisciplinary influences. Indeed, researchers have also gone back to some of the more classic concerns of critical organizational communication, using contemporary sensibilities to re-understand key concerns about concertive control and resistance and renewing interest in the study of organizational

rhetoric. Researchers have just begun to concern themselves with an ever-broadening array of topics, including environmental activism, postcolonial pol- itics, sexuality in organizations, and community engagement. It is reasonably safe to suppose that such directions are more likely than not to be mul- tiple and fragmented, as distinct from the relatively homogeneous conceptual growth evident in an ear- lier generation.

Shiv Ganesh

See also Corporate Colonization Theory; Critical Theory; Discourse Theory and Analysis; Feminist Communication Theories; Globalization Theories; Hybridity; Identification; Interpretive Theory; Intersectionality; Organizational Communication Theories; Organizational Control Theory; Organizational Culture; Organizational Identity Theory; Poststructuralism

Further Readings

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clair, R. P. (1998). Organizing silence: A world of possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ganesh, S., Zoller, H. M., & Cheney, G. (2005). Transforming resistance, broadening our boundaries: Critical organizational communication studies meets globalization from below. Communication Monographs, 72, 169–191.

Golden, A., Kirby, E., & Jorgensen, J. (2006). Work-life research from both sides now: An integrative perspective for organizational and family communication. Communication Yearbook, 30, 143–195.

Larson, G., & Tompkins, P. (2005). Ambivalence and resistance: A study of management and resistance in a concertive control system. Communication Monographs, 72, 1–21.

May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (Eds.). (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Meisenbach, R., & McMillan, J. J. (2006). Blurring the boundaries: Historical developments and future

231Critical Race Theory

directions in organizational rhetoric. Communication Yearbook, 30, 99–141.

Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mumby, D. K. (1993). Critical organizational communication studies: The next ten years. Communication Monographs, 60, 8–25.

Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/ paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349–407.

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179–210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY

Critical race theory (CRT) is perhaps best charac- terized as a loosely knit body of work that centers on the study of race and racism. Committed to a complex notion of race as simultaneously socially constructed and deeply material, at least in its lived experience and its effects, CRT offers a his- toricized and dynamic study of race and racism that traces the roots of racial thinking and racist practice as it also carefully tracks contemporary discourses and practices of race and racism.

Origins

Though the origins of CRT can be traced to the influential writings of early figures such as W. E. B. DuBois and civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and César Chávez, its formal emer- gence dates to the mid-1970s and the writings of legal scholar Derrick Bell. Bell, among others, launched a critique of the legal system, arguing that its methods and practices perpetuated a racially stratified society. Though his considerable body of work offers numerous specific critiques, his larger argument can perhaps best be summarized as fol- lows: Racial thinking is ingrained in U.S. history, culture, politics, law, and society in ways that often mask it, making both the racial thinking and the

racist manifestations appear neutral. Moreover, the intersection of that racial thinking with the U.S. tradition of liberalism promotes practices and poli- cies that appear to motivate change but that tradi- tionally have enabled the perpetuation of both racial thinking and racist practice. A central such instance for Bell and other CRT scholars is civil rights legislation. While not denying the clear mate- rial changes brought about by civil rights, Bell argued, in instances such as the increasing attacks on affirmative action, that the gains made were being lost. CRT also owes debt for its emergence to the critical legal studies (CLS) movement. CLS scholars, writing mainly in the 1970s and 1980s, argued that while law tends to be thought of as neutral, it is heavily political. Indeed, they coined the argument that law is politics. By this, they sought to draw attention to the power-laden biases that drive legal thought and policy. Influenced by the writings of continental social theorists, CLS maintains that U.S. law has mostly served the inter- ests of the dominant and functioned to justify the injustices that it enables. For CRT scholars, such arguments help illustrate the Whiteness that perme- ates law and society more generally. In response, Bell and the growing community of CRT scholars advocate new approaches to law and legal thinking that would both revise conceptions of race and rac- ism and advocate for racial justice.

Fundamental Assumptions

The writings of CRT scholars are increasingly interdisciplinary and varied. Still, several assump- tions are widely shared. United in its investment in the study of race, CRT argues that racism is not merely the seemingly pathological acts of a few extremists, such as members of the Ku Klux Klan, nor is it only the overt expressions of discrimina- tion, such as expressed in Jim Crow laws. Instead, racism is expressed in everyday discourse and practice by much or even all society. In explana- tion, they argue that racism is a normal, not an exceptional, part of U.S. society; that is, race and racism are so deeply a part of U.S. thought and culture that racial thinking and racist practice have come to look “normal.” Given the invisibility of race and racism, CRT advocates careful histori- cized and localized studies of race and racism. In a sense, CRT argues for a constant mapping of the

232 Critical Race Theory

racial landscape. CRT argues that racist thought and practice are historically and contextually spe- cific; this dynamism requires that scholars attend to its various manifestations. CRT scholars argue, for instance, that racism looks very different in a post–civil rights world than it did previously. Civil rights legislation required the ending of overt acts of racism—such as school segregation—but did not and does not end covert or institutionalized forms of racism. Thus, for instance, while de jure racial segregation is illegal, de facto racial segrega- tion, in housing and education, continues, though its racial component is easily masked by its class component. These ways of thinking about race and racism are then closely linked to a third assumption, that traditional legal thinking is both racial and racist. Grounded in an ideology of lib- eralism, traditional legal thinking is invested in universalism and formal equality, both of which advantage dominant cultures and disadvantage marginalized ones. Here, CRT maintains, for instance, that universalism—or the argument that all similar instances be treated identically— protects some populations over others. It argues that all people, regardless of race, class, and gen- der, should be treated the same, but in doing so, it ignores the reality that race, class, and gender mean that people’s experiences are not the same. Universalism, for instance, underlies arguments for formal equal opportunity as manifest in such practices as standardized testing. CRT scholars, however, note that, conceptualized as such, equal opportunity is in fact not equal, for standardized testing benefits racially and class-privileged popu- lations. The critiques of the legal field captured in CRT discussions of liberalism, equality, and uni- versalism all express the larger foundational argu- ment that racial justice is unlikely to occur via traditional legal routes, which typically do not require rethinking of racial reasoning and racism.

Core Themes

Spurred by the fundamental assumptions about race and racism, along with law and legal change, CRT asks several key questions about racial justice and social change. While these questions do not capture the entirety of the CRT agenda, they do point to overarching issues that drive much of this interdisciplinary body of research.

The guiding concern for CRT is, of course, race and racism, and much scholarship is designed to uncover the ways in which racism continues to be the norm. In assessing this question, Bell intro- duced interest convergence theory, or the idea that dominant populations, such as Whites, will sup- port an antiracist policy or practice only when they perceive it to benefit them. Others within CRT, such as legal scholar Stephanie Wildman and communication theorist Dreama Moon, turn to the notion of privilege, which has also been carefully addressed outside CRT. Privilege, as the feminist and antiracist scholar Peggy McIntosh explains, is the system in which some populations, for instance Whites, enjoy unearned advantages to which people of color do not have access. One example is the presumed racial neutrality of the opinions and arguments made by Whites; people of color are often perceived as pursuing a racial agenda in their arguments or as being racially biased. Making a related argument, Cheryl Harris has coined the idea of Whiteness as property; it is something of value—a privilege—that only some people own and/or have access to.

A second theme within CRT might be framed as the attention given to absences and invisibilities in racial thinking. For instance, a number of scholars have looked at the limitations of what they refer to as the Black/White binary. Tracing the ways in which race is understood as an either/or between Black and White, CRT scholars identify the result- ing gaps in how both race and racism are under- stood and perceived. They note that the histories, experiences, identities, and legacies of Latinos/as, Asian Americans, and American Indians have been largely neglected in both popular and academic literature. In addition, some have argued that rac- ist and racial policies that predominantly affect Latinos/as and Asian Americans, such as English- only laws, are not as readily seen as racist because the policies do not directly affect Blacks.

A second primary emphasis in the assessment of absences and invisibilities is discussion of intersec- tionality. Like research on the Black/White binary, this work challenges either/or thinking and asks for more complex understandings of race that attend to the intersections of race with other aspects of social location, such as gender, class, sexuality, and nation. In her groundbreaking work, Kimberlé Crenshaw explored the invisibility

233Critical Race Theory

of women of color and delineated the ways in which women of color are systematically disad- vantaged by a logic that, for instance, keeps track of “women and minorities.” She and others have argued that this language, so firmly rooted in social practice, fails to recognize that women of color are simultaneously women and minorities.

Storytelling provides a third way in which CRT seeks to fill in existing gaps in knowledge and ways of thinking. Convinced that traditional theo- retical models and academic modes of writing provide only a partial accounting of the range of social experiences, CRT advocates nontraditional modes of writing that emphasize the use of per- sonal and community knowledge, including the relating of narratives, both auto/biographical and fictional. These counternarratives, often grounded in the everyday racialized experience of people of color, provide correctives to traditional narratives and historic accounts, as well as offering evidence of the multiple ways of knowing that exist.

A final area of interest for CRT includes the development of new theoretical accounts of race and racism. Two recurring arguments are the dis- cussions of particularism and microaggressions. Continuing its critique of liberalism and universal- ism, CRT advocates particularism, or what has come to be known as the call to context. As noted earlier, CRT challenges the liberalism of tradi- tional legal theory, with particular attention to the tendency in legal thought, law, and policy to advo- cate universalism. But CRT maintains that all people and all experiences are not the same; race, as well as gender and class, means that people’s lives are vastly different. Thus, CRT continues, we cannot treat all crimes or all people in the same way. Instead, CRT asks that we account for the particulars of one’s life or the context in which a particular event occurred and in this way gather greater insight into how race works on an every- day basis.

In assessing racism and tracking its continual evolution, scholars have also drawn attention not just to the overt acts of racism that prevailed prior to the civil rights movement but also to the more covert acts of racism pervasive today. These include everyday acts that traditional scholarship has largely ignored, such as microaggressions, or acts that are easily dismissed or negated. One such instance might be the tendency, particularly

though not exclusively among White women, to hold their purse tightly, to lock their car doors, or to cross to the other side of the street when they encounter Black men. CRT scholars have argued that these microaggressions take place frequently, even daily, for people of color and become one of the more emotionally exhausting forms of rac- ism; the larger society generally fails to acknowl- edge the racial component of these acts as well as the toll they take.

Interdisciplinary and Cross-Disciplinary Developments

Though CRT initially emerged among legal schol- ars, it has increasingly grown such that CRT scholarship is now a truly interdisciplinary ven- ture, with work being done in such fields as soci- ology, education, and, of course, communication. Continuing to examine the broad themes dis- cussed above, the interdisciplinary scholarship also directs attention to the particularities of each discipline. For instance, education scholars exam- ine the racial assumptions of educational institu- tions. Looking at practices such as standardized testing, classroom interactions, and epistemolo- gies, they question whether schooling can be con- sidered to include being schooled into racial thinking. Communication scholars have asked a number of critical questions, many of which examine the discursivity of race. Some look at issues of free speech, while others pursue ques- tions of hate speech. A considerable body of scholarship explores larger social discourses, such as those surrounding immigration, hate crimes, affirmative action, and English-only laws.

In addition to these interdisciplinary ventures, CRT has generated several closely related bodies of literature, including three projects examining the racial dynamics of Latinos/as, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. These are commonly referred to as Latcrit, Asiacrit, and Tribalcrit. Critical race feminism, another offshoot, regularly considers the intersections of race and gender. Finally, critical Whiteness studies, while not neces- sarily an outgrowth of CRT, are a closely related body of work. All these projects include both legal and interdisciplinary scholars. Across both the interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary studies, one finds work that both extends the core focus of CRT

234 Critical Rhetoric

and adds to that study with the specific interests of the particular fields.

Lisa A. Flores

See also Critical Theory; Feminist Communication Theories; Frankfurt School; Intersectionality; Privilege; Whiteness Theory

Further Readings

Bell, D. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York: Basic Books.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1297.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (1996). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press.

Delgado, R. (1995): The Rodrigo chronicles: Conversations about America and race. New York: New York University Press.

Delgado, R., & Stefanic, J. (1998). The Latino/a condition: A critical reader. New York: New York University Press.

Flores, L. A., & Moon, D. G. (2002). Rethinking race, revealing dilemmas: Imagining a new racial subject in Race Traitor. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 181–207.

Hasian, M., Jr., & Delgado, F. P. (1998). The trials and tribulations of racialized critical rhetorical theory: Understanding the ambiguities of Proposition 187. Communication Theory, 8, 245–270.

Holmes, D. G. (2007). Affirmative reaction: Kennedy, Nixon, King, and the evolution of color-blind rhetoric. Rhetoric Review, 26, 25–41.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68.

CRITICAL RHETORIC

The critical rhetoric project began in the early 1980s in the communication discipline principally with the work of Raymie McKerrow and Michael Calvin McGee. The phrase critical rhetoric in par- ticular owes its genesis to McGee. Work by Phillip Wander, Michael McGee, Maurice Charland, Robert Hariman, and Celeste Condit, among

others, was instrumental in building the arguments that led to the publication of the essay “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis” by McKerrow in 1989. While the designation of a critique of domina- tion and critique of freedom, and the principles that encompassed a new formulation of rhetoric’s prov- enance, may have been seen as original or new, they were premised on the ongoing conversation among scholars begun in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Reason, in all of its forms, has had a dominant role in Western theories of rhetoric. Derived from both Plato and Aristotle, the sense that rhetoric should be reasoned discourse lives on in the work of deliberative democracy theorists in the 21st cen- tury. While not seeking to eliminate reason or rational discourse from the playing field, a critical rhetoric perspective recognizes that not all com- munication between people will be, or necessarily should be, “reasoned,” especially if the sense of rationality that is meant is that dictated by those “in charge.” The power of the entrenched estab- lishment in determining who can say what to whom and in what way is not to be ignored. But it is to be challenged, and that is, from the outset, the orientation of a critical perspective on rhetoric’s role. As noted above, the critical practice encom- passes two distinct (yet not mutually exclusive) perspectives: What is styled a critique of domina- tion is oriented toward emancipation and may be best seen in terms of a “freedom from” domina- tion. On the other hand, what is styled a critique of freedom is an attempt to place the focus on a not-yet-determined future, captured as a freedom to become other than we are at this moment. A focus on power relations (derived from Michel Foucault’s analysis) places repressive power in the camp of domination, while a productive sense of power—what it can create in positive terms—is placed in the camp of freedom. While seeing these as two sides of the same coin is appropriate, they may function in a blended perspective, wherein one both seeks to escape (freedom from) and, at the same time, considers what one might be free to escape to.

In addition, the hope is that the critic is willing to go beyond a simple criticism to interrogate the very assumptions on which either domination or freedom rests. Nothing is privileged in an ultimate or permanent sense in the process of critiquing present reality. Thus, the grounding assumptions

235Critical Rhetoric

underlying democracy, for example, become sub- ject to examination. This implies a commitment to recursivity, or constant critique: that which is “decided” as a preferred state of affairs for a peo- ple becomes, once instantiated, the subject of renewed examination. Nothing is held constant— unless one wishes it to remain. That is, critique is not committed to change as the only outcome but is committed to a reexamination of social relations (wherein power is seen as relational). What is “critical” in this scene is that, once advocacy stops and change is instantiated, it becomes a subject for continual critique. The constancy of a continual critique does not, in and of itself, blind one to ever taking action. Action may be the outcome of a specific critique at some point in time. The changes that occur in relations between people may be “a better world” (as one might hope in advocating a change), but that better world is not, by virtue of that change, a perfect place for all people.

Critical rhetoric is not a method of analysis. Rather, it is an orientation toward critical practice that does not seek to advance a specific approach or a specific set of terms that one might use in illu- minating an object of inquiry. Drawing on Foucault, it seeks instead to understand how a particular discursive formation comes to be, in a particular place and time. Thus, it resists being named, as naming may result in any particular act of critique being reified as “the way this is done.” In reversing traditional approaches to public address, however, it does follow what McGee termed an inventional approach in critical practice. McGee was not seeking—nor does a critical rhetoric perspective seek—to destroy the agent as a formulator of change. Instead, the approach seeks to place the agent in a larger context of contingent forces that shape discursive acts. Thus, the agent is implicated in a past and future in an ongoing and contingently derived process. Any rhetorical act is premised on those that preceded its enunciation; rhetors seek change in a context that is not of their own mak- ing, yet may influence new relationships through their efforts to give voice to that which should be said. Once said, the new future is itself subject to further critique.

McKerrow’s 1989 article advanced eight prin- ciples that sought, collectively, to reshape and redirect criticism. Borrowing directly from McGee, the first principle announces an inventional theme

that orients criticism toward praxis. What is altered in this expression is not that practice is “unmethodical,” but rather that one’s approach is not constrained by any specific tactics or strate- gies in ordering one’s thought about an event or text. One may be methodical in assessing an event without claiming allegiance to any precise “do this, and then do this” approach. What is privi- leged is a question: What does this context deter- mine to be necessary in best understanding and analyzing its features?

The second principle recognizes that discourse is itself a material entity. While there are varying analyses that make this a controversial claim (for example, the work of Carole Blair, Dana Cloud, and Ronald Greene), the point being advanced here is simply that words matter—discourse makes a difference.

The third principle asserts that rhetoric is more properly seen as doxastic rather than epistemic. Given rhetoric’s relation to contingency (that which could be otherwise), doxa, or grounded opinion, rejects a true-or-false knowledge in favor of a way of knowing that is contingent; words are seen as constituting a social reality, and what brings these words rather than others into the scene at this time is the focus of analysis.

The fourth principle follows on the heels of the previous commitment to a relativized sense of knowledge in noting that naming is central to rhetoric. Implicit in a recognition of the power of naming is Kenneth Burke’s perspective: Naming is neither final nor absolute, but rather an interpre- tive move in assessing what “is” perceived to be true at this moment. Through naming, one fixes that which is named (consider the attempt to remove the stigma of ex-con from one’s existence after serving time) and thereby asserts one’s rela- tion to that which is named. Power is never far removed as a relational force that influences social relations; it asserts who can name, as well as the possibility of resistance to being so named. Should resistance be successful, the change in naming also changes the social relations between those involved. Recognizing the ex-con as a person who is more than what is carried in that name and refusing to continue using that attribution alters the social connection that exists.

The fifth principle suggests that influence is not, in and of itself, proof of a causal force or

236 Critical Rhetoric

relationship. Drawing again on the work of Michel Foucault, the question is, Why this dis- course rather than another at this time? This implies a causal force may be at work in forcing or determining the direction of discourse, thereby further removing the agent as one who might make his or her own decisions about such matters. What is intended by this principle is a simple rec- ognition that whatever is going on may not be reducible to causal claims. Were this the case, we would be mired in modernity—in a linear evolu- tion of determinative events that forecast the future. The continuity of history would be a pre- given attitude. Such a perspective is limiting in terms of what actually happens.

From an understanding that influence may not be causal, we come to the sixth principle, which focuses attention on the relationship between pres- ence and absence. There is a natural tendency to gravitate toward that which is observable—that which is present in the social scene. What this principle seeks is a reminder: Absence may be more important, more potent, as a source of infor- mation than mere presence. The examination of media events, for example, is surely informed by who is seen. Nevertheless, who is not present is equally telling—as years of awards going to Caucasians, as years of movies with Whites play- ing the role of Native Americans, as years of not- ing the absence of Black head coaches in the National Football League would tell us, if only we would pay attention.

The seventh principle further complicates the critical act by noting that polysemy, or multiple perspectives, is far more common in interpretive work. Critiquing from an ideological perspective does not imply that one, and only one, conclusion is possible from one’s understanding of a scene. Rather, multiple perspectives, each perhaps ema- nating from slightly different questions being asked, will generate equally different takes on the meaning or significance of an event or text. Defeasibility rules in the critical, interpretive realm. This does not mean a position is inherently inde- fensible, but it does mean that its defense is open to question and validation. That different views can be taken on the same event does not mean everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion— extreme relativism is not intended to be the result. Rather, it means that, just because I believe X, I

still must show, and not just tell, why I believe in this way. Making the best case for an interpretive claim is tantamount to defending one’s critical assessment, while recognizing that changing one’s mind is an open option in the face of alternative interpretations.

The critical act culminates in a performance of oneself, hence the final principle. The critic, just as the rhetor, advocates and hence commits self in the world to this position rather than another. In so doing, the critic goes beyond mere description (this is what I think happened) to an evaluation of what that action means. The performance may be more than one of conveying information; it also may well be a political act—privileging one form of discourse over another or noting the ill effects that a continued exposure to or belief in a form of dis- course may have for society. To advocate, espe- cially in the context of advancing one’s own ideological stance toward the world, is not done from a position of having the only or “right” answer. The principle of recursivity accompanies the critical act, just as it does the potential to engage others in a new or different power matrix.

To close, the critical rhetorician, in the guise of an inventor, takes an orientation toward the sym- bolic world that commits one to the possibility of error. At the same time, to risk failure does not imply a paralysis of will. The critical rhetorician seeks change via her or his own assessment of dis- cursive formations, knowing full well that the instantiation of a new universe, with different pos- sibilities for discursive interactions, lays itself open to renewed critique.

Raymie E. McKerrow

See also Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical Theory; Ideological Rhetoric; Ideology; Materiality of Discourse; Power and Power Relations; Rhetorical Theory

Further Readings

Blair, C. (2001). Reflections on criticism and bodies: Parables from public places. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 271–294.

Charland, M. (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Quebecois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 133–150.

237Critical Theory

Cloud, D. (1994). The materiality of discourse as oxymoron: A challenge to critical rhetoric. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 141–163.

Condit, C. (1987). Democracy and civil rights: The universalizing influence of public argumentation. Communication Monographs, 54, 1–18.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

Greene, R. W. (2004). Rhetoric and capitalism: Rhetorical agency as communicative labor. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 37, 188–206.

Hariman, R. (1986). Status, marginality and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 38–54.

McGee, M. C. (1975). In search of the “People”: A rhetorical alternative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 235–249.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1–16.

McGee, M. C. (1984). Another Philippic: Notes on the ideological turn in criticism. Central States Speech Journal, 35, 43–50.

McGee, M, C. (1990). Text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 274–289.

McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91–111.

McKerrow, R. E. (1991). Critical rhetoric in a postmodern world. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 75–78.

McKerrow, R. E. (1993). Critical rhetoric and the possibility of the subject. In I. Angus & L. Langsdorf, (Eds.), The critical turn: Rhetoric and philosophy in postmodern discourse (pp. 51–67). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

McKerrow, R. E., & St. John, J. (2005). Critical rhetoric: A context for continual critique. In J. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 345–366). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ono, K. A., & Sloop, J. M. (1992). Commitment to telos: A sustained critical rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 59, 48–60.

Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 1–18.

CRITICAL THEORY

At first glance, critical theory appears to be quite negative. It sounds like a tool of analysis to

denigrate things, people, and ideas. Criticism is something many associate with negativity, dispar- agement, and disapproval, yet despite the severe name, critical theory is very useful to the study of communication. Specifically, critical theory offers frameworks to analyze the complexities and con- tradictions of marginalization and resistance in societies. It is important to note at the outset that critical theory is not a theory proper but a set of complementary theoretical frames that examine structures of domination in society in order to open possibilities for the emancipation of people, meanings, and values. This two-pronged approach means that critical theorists see theory and action as inextricably interwoven. Critical theory is also oriented toward people, meaning that critical theorists use social life and lived experience as the site of inquiry for analysis and interpretation with the hope that they might find ways to make societ- ies more open and equitable for marginalized groups. Finally, critical theorists are interested in the discursive and material practices of oppression and resistance. To understand how critical theo- rists arrive at this intellectual focus, this entry will discuss the historical emergence of critical theory, the primary concepts of critical theory, the con- temporary forms of criticism in critical theory, and the applications of critical theory in commu- nication studies.

Historical Foundations

Most contemporary scholars attribute the emer- gence of critical theory to Max Horkheimer and the Frankfurt School of Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, popularly known as the Frankfurt School. In 1937, Horkheimer published a now famous essay entitled “Traditional and Critical Theory,” in which he outlined a needed change in the scholarly pursuit of knowledge. The traditional approach to research at the time privi- leged objective scientific methods and implicitly emphasized strict interpretations of Marx and, ultimately, Communist values for social organiz- ing and governance.

Largely responsive to the time period, Horkheimer called his colleagues to shift their energies to a new focus that would use Marxist theory in unorthodox and resistant ways, what is now understood as neo-Marxism. This approach

238 Critical Theory

uses Marxism as a theory to understand inequali- ties within a society. Unlike traditional approaches that used Marx as a universalizing theory, critical theorists use Marxist concepts such as exploita- tion, alienation, ideology, and class consciousness to understand the dynamics of marginalization. In reinterpreting Marx, Horkheimer specifically called his colleagues to use theory as a mode of critique to understand and ultimately change the organiza- tion of society. The first dimension of this new criticism was to historically examine the way a social structure forms and marginalizes particular groups. Second, Horkheimer believed that critical theorists should do interdisciplinary social research, analyzing politics, economics, sociology, and his- tory, among other disciplines, to holistically under- stand relations of domination within a society.

The writings of Marx are certainly a corner- stone of critical theory, but so is Freudian psycho- analysis. The Frankfurt School theorist most interested in the psychoanalytic dimension of social critique was Erich Fromm. In particular, Fromm examined the relationship between per- sonal freedom and social control, believing that the minute individuals achieve freedom, they search for some authority for affirmation of that freedom. While Fromm was questioned by others at the school for this focus, later it would become well accepted that, in addition to understanding how social structures exist external to individuals, scholars should also examine the ways structures embed themselves in the psyches of individuals and classes of people.

In addition to these theorists, the emergence of critical theory must also be attributed to Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, and Friedrich Pollock. Furthermore, since the 1960s, Jürgen Habermas has contributed greatly to criti- cal theory. Specifically, his theorizing has broad- ened the utility of critical theory by disconnecting it strictly from Marx. In addition to his work regarding the public sphere, Habermas argues that critical knowledge is information that allows indi- viduals to break away from forms of domination. The process of gaining this critical knowledge involves reflexivity, or the process of reflecting on one’s participation in structures of domination. While domination was certainly still relevant in the Marxist sense in Habermas’s work, Habermas called on critics to recognize other modes of

domination in society in need of critical attention. This point really helped open up critical theory to other modes of analysis. In particular, the found- ing work of these theorists is influential today in examinations of capitalism, social institutions, cul- ture industries, and popular culture. As will be elaborated in the next section, the foundational work in the Frankfurt School has led to a set of useful concepts that inform critical theorists’ inter- rogations of social structures.

Key Terms

As mentioned above, contemporary critical theory is not a unified theory but should be understood as a loose set of theoretical frameworks that all share the goal of critiquing domination with the end goal of social change. Because of this, there are innu- merable concepts that critical theorists use to eval- uate society. Most of these concepts—including false consciousness, alienation, the death drive, and melancholia—are situationally useful to critical theorists, depending on the focus of their analyses. There are, however, overarching concepts that inform most critical theory analyses.

Critique of Domination

A central thread in critical theory research is the examination of social conditions for the hidden productive structures of marginalization. This sort of examination looks at the constraints placed on people’s subjectivity, agency, and access to resources in particular contexts. Critical theorists understand that structures such as language, social institutions, and government produce meaning systems and knowledge about particular groups. Structures also produce, or reinforce, rules and norms for distrib- uting resources and recognition across groups. In both creating knowledge about people and allocat- ing resources to those people, these structures privilege some while marginalizing others. It is this inequality that is at the heart of critical theory’s analysis. The goal in critiquing such structures of domination, however, is to produce possibilities for transforming social relations.

Ideology

Most critical theorists would agree that one of the foundational dimensions of domination is

239Critical Theory

ideology, or systems of beliefs that serve as the foundation of a group’s worldview and perception of reality and consciousness. These ideas structure what people believe about others and the world. While some theorists, such as Louis Althusser, attribute the formation of ideologies to superstruc- tures that he names as state apparatuses, other critical theorists reject such a realistic source for ideology. Instead, many understand predominant ideologies to be constituted from dominant dis- courses and discursive practices within a society or institution. This does not mean that there are not alternative ideologies within a society, but that through deployment in language, some ideologies come to appear more normative and natural. This is the process that produces structures of domina- tion, or what scholars name as hegemony.

Hegemony

Studies of hegemony examine the struggle over ideologies and interests between differently classed individuals in a society. Hegemony happens when one group or one set of ideas is privileged over oth- ers, often through subversion or co-optation. Hegemony works in subtlety and soft suggestion rather than direct coercion. It happens when one group’s interests are shaped and shifted to reinforce the power of and benefit the dominant group’s interests. Hegemony is an important area of inquiry for critical theorists because people often are unaware that their actions and beliefs reinforce the dominant group’s interests. It is here, then, that critical scholars are called to intervene by analyzing social practices, norms, and conditions to challenge the eminence of particular ideologies. This task is called the social transformation objective of critical theory.

Social Transformation/Emancipation

Transformation is what sets critical theory apart from most other theories. In addition to analyzing, those who use this framework must provide possi- bilities for or institute social change. In this vein, theorists of this tradition understand description and social reform as co-constituting goals of theory. Importantly, however, social transformation is not limited to physical activism, but change also hap- pens through discursive interventions, or offering

emancipatory readings of domination that might lead individuals to change their participation in oppressive systems and ideas.

Contemporary Approaches

Depending on who is asked, theoretical approaches including Marxist analysis, psychoanalysis, public sphere theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, Foucaultian analyses, poststructuralism, disabili- ties studies, queer theory, postcolonial theory, and critical legal theory are included in the purview of critical theory. This inclusion is in many ways rep- resentative of critical theory, and yet there are major foundational dissonances among these frameworks if they are conceived of as a unified body of theory. These dissonances include dis- agreements about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, and the preferred methods of analy- sis. And yet, broadly concerned, there are primary resonances among these trajectories of critical theory. The primary modes of criticism that are useful to communication studies are reviewed in the following section.

Marxist Criticism

Critical theory began with Martin Heidegger’s reinterpretation of Marxist theory, and so it makes sense that neo-Marxism is still the foundation of critical theory approaches. Marx was centrally concerned with the ways that dominant modes of production determine relations between people in society. Specifically, he believed that the focus on profit in capitalist societies created relations of domination between those that labor and those that benefit from labor. Heidegger’s revisioning of Marxism allowed contemporary scholars of Marx to complicate their analysis of oppression in soci- ety. Instead of a strict class analysis, neo-Marxists see domination as the result of multiple interlock- ing systems of oppression, with class as one con- tributing factor to that marginalization.

Psychoanalytic Criticism

While not completely accepted when critical theory first emerged, psychoanalysis is now a part of a long tradition of examining domination, par- ticularly in regard to questions of human nature

240 Critical Theory

and subjectivity. Psychoanalysis provides theoreti- cal tools to understand how domination manifests in individuals. While Sigmund Freud posited that adult behavior can be explained by childhood and familial situations, psychoanalytic criticism today applies important Freudian and Lacanian (from the work of Jacques Lacan, who followed and elaborated on Freud’s work) concepts such as mel- ancholia and displacement to examine the ways that groups of people respond to their positions of marginalization and privilege. This criticism differs from many other forms of critical theory in that it calls theorists to examine the effects of social struc- tures through a focus on human behavior.

Poststructuralist Criticism

While psychoanalysis calls for an examination of human behavior, poststructuralist criticism investigates structures of language for the ways that they create and maintain social domination. Most of our lives we take language for granted and use it without reflection. Poststructuralist criticism offers the tool to investigate the hidden meanings and implications of language choices. Specifically, the tool of deconstruction is used to interrogate ideologies veiled in language and language structures such as the binary. This criticism contributes to critical theory in that it provides a way of examining structures of domi- nation that are produced and reproduced through language.

Foucaultian Criticism

Michel Foucault was never a member of the Frankfurt School, but his research resonates greatly with the basic premises of the critical theory approach. First, Foucault contributed greatly to discussions of power, believing that power was not only destructive, but that there is an affirma- tive, or productive, dimension to power. This contribution has greatly shaped the work of criti- cal theorists as they now question both the way power marginalizes and how people resist in the face of marginalization.

Like other critical theorists, Foucault’s work focuses on social life and subjugation in institu- tions of society. In particular, Foucault offers important theoretical and methodological tools

for examining social institutions and people’s relationship to institutions. For example, Foucault himself investigated the psychological institution (psychologically based institutions and norms), the prison system, and religion. In particular, his work provides critical theorists with tools to understand discourse, the relationship between power and knowledge, governmentality (the orga- nized practices through which people are gov- erned), and ethics. Critical theorists using Foucault in their analyses may approach their investigation using his methodological tools of archeology and genealogy, or they may examine structures of dominance via Foucaultian concepts.

Feminist Criticism

The previous modes of criticism offered tools to examine marginalization in class structures, lan- guage structures, and social institutions. Feminist criticism is considered by many a dimension of critical theory for its primary focus on gender inequality and patriarchy as a system of gender oppression. Many feminist critics conjoin feminist analysis with other forms of criticism to focus on particular manifestations of gender oppression in society. For example, many feminists take a post- structuralist perspective to understand the function of language in maintaining gender oppression. Others employ a Marxist or Foucaultian emphasis in their examinations of gendered social structures.

Postcolonial Criticism

Most strands of critical theory provide tools to examine structures of domination within societies, but postcolonial criticism interrogates the relations of domination between societies. Informed by the processes of colonization and decolonization around the world, postcolonial criticism examines the way knowledge, discourse, economics, politics, and many other facets of social life exist in unequal relationships between nation-states. In particular, postcolonial critics interrogate the dominance of Western discourse, media, and intellectualism in producing knowledge about colonial subjects and states. Postcolonial criticism also provides tools to examine the effects of colonization and decoloni- zation on subjects within societies. This mode of criticism is not only greatly informed by Marx, but

241Critical Theory

much of the research also takes a psychoanalytic or poststructuralist approach to understanding subjectivity and subjugation.

Influence in Communication Studies

Critical theory has broadly influenced the ways scholars in the social sciences and humanities approach research, and communication studies is certainly no exception. While critical theory began to emerge in Europe around the 1940s and 1950s, U.S. American communication scholars did not begin to fully engage with it until the 1980s and 1990s. The latency of critical theory’s application in communication studies is due in large part to the dominance of functionalist assumptions about research, including the privileging of objectivity and generalizability in many strands of communi- cation research. Furthermore, many classic critical theorists were not accessible to U.S. American communication scholars because they were not translated into English, and most U.S. communica- tion scholars were not required to be fluent in texts outside the English-speaking world. Despite the late arrival, critical theory has had enormous influ- ence in communication studies, specifically in the areas of rhetoric, performance studies, organiza- tional communication, and, to some extent, inter- cultural communication.

Rhetoric

As noted above, many of the areas in communi- cation studies have taken up critical theory as a mode of analysis, but perhaps none as completely as rhetorical studies. Scholars concerned with soci- ety have had an important—and sometimes contested—relationship with rhetoric, or the study of public discourse and deliberation. Critical theo- ry’s focus on structures of domination, however, melds nicely with rhetoric’s examination of dis- course in action via speech and public texts. Much like social researchers who examine class, lan- guage, or colonial relations of domination, rhe- torical scholars are interested in the way domination plays out in people’s speech, including who speaks and what/when/where they speak. The relevance of critical theory is evident in rhetoric’s focus on key critical theorists such as Heidegger, Habermas, and Marcuse. Critical theory is also evident in the

deployment of particular forms of critical theory to study public discourse. For example, feminist rhetori- cian Cindy Griffin makes use of the Marxist concept of alienation in her analysis of Mary Wollstonecraft’s rhetoric. In examining Wollstonecraft’s writings on the conditions of women, Griffin calls rhetorical scholars to see that alienation is not only material but that it exists in the discursive realm through language that positions women in passivity and objectivity rather than as active agents. These dis- cursive alienations of women then are materially reproduced and reinforced through the lack of women’s access to public recognition and resources.

In addition to forms of criticism, rhetoricians have developed methods of analysis centrally informed by critical theory. Two of the most uti- lized modes of critical analysis are the ideographic analysis, conceptualized by Michael McGee, and critical rhetoric, formulated by Raymie McKerrow. Critical rhetoric directly ties to the project of criti- cal theory, taking a two-pronged approach to a critique of domination and a critique of freedom. Here McKerrow aligns with Foucault in under- standing power as both marginalizing (critique of domination) and productive (critique of freedom). Additionally, the transformative project of critical rhetoric as conceived by McKerrow is discursive intervention.

Performance Studies

Much like rhetoric, performance is an impor- tant site for the intervention of critical theory. In the 1980s, performance scholars debated the utility of critical theories in the interpretation of litera- ture. In particular, the work of Marcuse and Adorno was influential early on in performance studies because of these two theorists’ emphasis on aesthetics. Additionally, poststructuralist criticism provided ways of reading below the surface of lit- erature to examine the undergirding ideologies in literary texts. Poststructuralism is also influential because it provides tools to understand how dis- course constructs what people know and what they do. In particular, performance scholars are inter- ested in Jacques Derrida’s notion of citationality— that people’s everyday verbal and corporeal performances are nonoriginal, constantly referenc- ing past performances.

242 Critical Theory

Finally, performance scholars are very much concerned with the second dimension of critical theory’s intent—social transformation. Not only do performance scholars work toward social reform through discursive interventions, but they actively engage in reform through actual performance to change what people know, believe, and do.

Organizational Communication

Scholars of organizational communication have largely welcomed critical forms of analysis to the study of organizations and organizing. In particu- lar, they have been interested in the ways that par- ticular individuals or groups come to hold power in organizations. Additionally, they examine the way power functions in discursive and material prac- tices within organizations. For example, Angela Trethewey uses critical theory as a framework to explore how ideologies of aging shape professional women’s experiences at work. She finds that as they age, professional women experience loss, iso- lation, and diminished access to resources and at the same time deploy resistance strategies against the “decline” story offered by age ideology.

Intercultural Communication

It might seem obvious that scholars of culture and communication would be interested in dynam- ics of power among cultural groups, but critical studies of intercultural dynamics had a relatively late start in comparison to other foci within com- munication. Despite this late start, there is a grow- ing contingent of intercultural work that examines the relations of power evident in dynamics between cultural groups. Much of this work explores the meanings attributed to differently classed, raced, gendered, national, sexual, or able-bodied indi- viduals. For example, scholar Lisa Flores examines the mediated representations of Mexican immi- grants to the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, finding that immigrants are not only represented as other to White U.S. citizens but are dehuman- ized in mediated accounts to justify deportation. Other critical modes of intercultural work involve investigating the ways that marginalized groups respond or resist oppression and examining the way power plays out in actual intercultural encoun- ters and relations.

Conclusion

This review of critical theory has explicated the basic tenets of this school of research, identified its historical foundations, reviewed key terms, discussed prominent modes of criticism, and reviewed the influence of critical theory on the communication discipline. While no accounting of a school of inquiry such as critical theory can be complete, this discussion has hopefully provided an opening into the exciting possibilities of critical modes of analysis.

Sara L. McKinnon

See also Archeology and Genealogy; Critical Organizational Communication; Deconstruction; Feminist Communication Theories; Frankfurt School; Ideological Rhetoric; Ideology; Intercultural Communication Theories; Marxist Theory; Performance Theories; Postcolonial Theory; Postructuralism; Pragmatics; Public Sphere; Rhetorical Theory

Further Readings

Farrell, T. B., & Aune, J. A. (1979). Critical theory and communication: A selective literature review. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 93–120.

Flores, L. (2003). Constructing rhetorical borders: Peons, illegal aliens, and competing narratives of immigration. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 20, 362–387.

Griffin, C. L. (2000). Rhetoricizing alienation: Mary Wollstonecraft and the rhetorical construction of women’s oppression. In C. R. Burgchardt (Ed.), Readings in rhetorical criticism (2nd ed., pp. 507–526). State College, PA: Strata.

Hardt, H. (1992). Critical communication studies: Communication, history, and theory in America. New York: Routledge.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1–16.

McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91–111.

Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 343–375.

Pollock, D., & Cox, R. J. (1991). Historicizing “reason”: Critical theory, practice and postmodernity. Communication Monographs, 58, 170–178.

243Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory

Trethewey, A. (2001). Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife professional women’s experiences of aging. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 183–226.

Tyson, L. (2006). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. New York: Routledge.

CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION THEORY

Around the world, millions of people relocate and cross cultural or subcultural boundaries each year. Although unique in individual circumstances, all strangers in an unfamiliar environment embark on the common project of establishing and maintain- ing, over time, a relatively stable and reciprocal relationship with the host environment. Young Yun Kim explains this phenomenon in her cross- cultural adaptation theory.

The theory is framed by three boundary condi- tions: (1) The strangers have had a primary social- ization in one culture or subculture and have moved into a different and unfamiliar culture (or subculture), (2) they are at least minimally depen- dent on the host environment for meeting their personal and social needs, and (3) they are regu- larly engaged in firsthand communication experi- ences with that environment.

Kim laid the initial groundwork for this theory in 1976 in a study of Korean immigrants in the Chicago area, followed by a series of studies con- ducted among various other immigrant groups. A full-fledged theory was first presented in 1988, and a further updated and refined version in 2001. This theory has been widely utilized in research studies across social science disciplines including intercultural communication, mass communica- tion, cross-cultural and social psychology, migra- tion studies, education, social work, and business management.

A Communication Phenomenon

The theory is built on the premise that a person is an open system that coevolves with the sociocul- tural environment. Plasticity, or the ability to learn and change through communicative exchanges with the environment, is one of the most profound

characteristics of the human mind and the very basis on which individuals adapt to conditions of the environment. Cross-cultural adaptation is, thus, regarded in this theory as the unfolding of the natural human tendency to struggle to regain an internal equilibrium in the face of adversarial envi- ronmental conditions.

By placing adaptation at the intersection of the person and the environment, the theory explains cross-cultural adaptation essentially as a process that occurs in and through communication activi- ties. Underscored in this view is that communica- tion is the necessary vehicle without which adaptation cannot take place, and that some degree of cross-cultural adaptation, no matter how minuscule, occurs as long as the individual remains engaged with the host environment. This systemic, communication-based conception elevates the ontological status of cross-cultural adaptation to the level of a panhuman phenomenon that must be treated not merely as a specific analytic research unit (such as an independent or dependent vari- able), but as the entirety of the evolutionary pro- cess an individual undergoes in relation to an unfamiliar environment.

The theory addresses two central questions: (1) How does the cross-cultural adaptation process unfold over time? and (2) What are the key factors that help explain the different speeds with which individuals achieve adaptive changes?

Process

The first question concerning the unfolding of cross-cultural adaptation over time is answered in the form of a process model, a theoretical repre- sentation of the process of a person’s evolution toward increased person–environment fit. The theory explains that this evolutionary process inevitably accompanies stress in the individual psyche, a kind of identity conflict rooted in the desire to retain the habitual mind, on one hand, and the necessity to seek congruence with the new milieu on the other. The experience of stress pro- duces a state of disequilibrium, often manifested in emotional lows of uncertainty, confusion, anxiety, cynicism, hostility, avoidance, or withdrawal.

Yet, no open system can stabilize itself forever. If it were so, nothing would come of evolution. The heightened self-awareness in the state of stress

244 Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory

serves as the very force that propels strangers to overcome the predicament and partake in the act of adaptation through the active development of new habits. This is possible as they engage in forward-looking moves, striving to meet the chal- lenge by acting on and responding to the environ- ment. Stress, in this regard, is intrinsic to self- (re)organization and self-renewal.

What emerges from successful, long-term, and cumulative experiences of managing the stress– adaptation dialectic is a subtle and often impercep- tible psychological growth. This growth entails an increased complexity in an individual’s meaning system. Periods of stress pass as an individual works out new ways of handling problems, owing to the creative forces of self-reflexivity of the human mind.

The theory explains that, together, the three- pronged psychological phenomenon of stress, adaptation, and growth serves as the very force behind an individual’s adaptive change over time. The stress–adaptation–growth dynamic does not play out in a smooth, steady, and linear progres- sion, but in a dialectic, cyclic, and continual draw- back-to-leap pattern. Each stressful experience is responded to with a “draw-back,” which, in turn, activates adaptive energy to help individuals reor- ganize themselves and leap forward. As growth in some areas always occurs at the expense of others, the adaptation process follows a pattern that jux- taposes psychological integration and disintegra- tion, progression and regression.

The stress–adaptation–growth dynamic contin- ues as new challenges present themselves in the host environment, with the generally forward and upward movement in the direction of less stress and of greater adaptation and growth. In this pro- cess, large and sudden changes indicative of the severity of difficulties an individual experiences in the host environment are likely to occur during the initial phase of exposure to a new culture. Over a prolonged period of undergoing internal change, the fluctuations of stress and adaptation become less intense or severe, leading to an overall calming trend.

Structure

The second question driving this theory calls for a set of key factors that account for the different

speeds with which individuals move along the cross-cultural adaptation process. The theory answers this question in a structural model, in which key dimensions of factors that facilitate or impede the adaptation process are identified and their interrelationships articulated.

The theory locates the explanatory factors within the communicative interface of the stranger and the environment. In this communication framework, strangers’ communication activities are grouped in two basic, interdependent catego- ries: (1) (intra)personal communication, or the internal mental activities that occur within indi- viduals, disposing and preparing them to act and react in certain ways in actual social situations; and (2) social communication that takes place whenever they participate in face-to-face or medi- ated forms of interactions with other people.

Personal Communication: Host Communication Competence

The successful adaptation of strangers is real- ized only when their personal communication systems sufficiently overlap with those of the natives. The capacity of strangers to appropriately and effectively receive and process information and to design and execute mental plans in initiat- ing or responding to messages is labeled as host communication competence. Host communication competence facilitates the cross-cultural adapta- tion process directly and significantly. It serves as an instrumental, interpretive, and expressive means of coming to terms with the host environment.

The theory identifies key elements of host com- munication competence in three categories: (1) cognitive, (2) affective, and (3) operational. Cognitive competence includes such internal capa- bilities as the knowledge of the host culture and language, including the history, institutions, world- views, beliefs, mores, norms, and rules of interper- sonal conduct, among others. Language/culture learning is accompanied by a development of cog- nitive complexity, the structural refinement in an individual’s internal information-processing ability. Affective competence facilitates cross-cultural adap- tation by providing a motivational capacity to deal with various challenges of living in the host envi- ronment, including the willingness to make neces- sary changes in one’s original cultural habits. It also

245Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory

includes the openness to new learning and the capacity to partake in the natives’ emotional and aesthetic sensibilities. Operational competence allows strangers to enact their cognitive and affec- tive capabilities outwardly, making it possible for them to choose the combinations of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are appropriate and effec- tive in specific social situations.

Host and Ethnic Social Communication

Directly and reciprocally, the development of host communication competence influences, and is influenced by, an increased participation in host social communication activities of the host environ- ment. A stranger’s interpersonal and mass commu- nication experiences of the host environment are constrained by his or her host communication com- petence, while every host social communication event offers the stranger an opportunity for new cultural learning. Host interpersonal communica- tion, in particular, helps strangers to obtain vital information and insight into the mind-sets and behaviors of the local people, thereby serving as the points of reference for a check and validation of their own behaviors. Host mass communication facilitates the adaptation of strangers by exposing strangers to the larger environment. Serving this function are various forms of mass communication such as radio and television programs, magazine and newspaper articles, movies, museum exhibits, theater performances, Internet Web sites, audio- tapes, videotapes, and posters.

In many communities in contemporary societ- ies, strangers’ interpersonal and mass communica- tion activities involve co-ethnics or co-nationals and home cultural experiences. Ethnic interper- sonal communication activities provide strangers with access to their original cultural experiences, often rendering assistance to those who need mate- rial, informational, emotional, and other forms of social support. With the advent of Internet Web sites and direct satellite and cable broadcasts, strangers enjoy an increased access to various sources of ethnic mass communication that are produced locally or in their home country.

During the initial phases of relocation, when strangers lack host communication compe- tence, ethnic social communication activities may serve adaptation-facilitating functions. Due to the

relatively stress-free communication experience in dealing with their own ethnic individuals and media, ethnic communication experiences can offer temporary refuge and a support system. The theory explains, however, that heavy and pro- longed reliance on ethnic social communication activities tends to help maintain strangers’ original cultural habits and limit their opportunities to par- ticipate in the host environment.

Environment

To the extent that strangers participate in host social communication activities, the host environ- ment exerts potentially adaptive influences on them. The nature of such influence, in turn, is shaped by the various characteristics of the host environment itself. The theory identifies three key environmental conditions affecting the stranger’s adaptation pro- cess: (1) host receptivity, (2) host conformity pres- sure, and (3) ethnic group strength.

Host receptivity refers to the degree to which a given environment is structurally and psychologi- cally accessible and open to strangers. A given society or community may extend welcoming atti- tudes toward particular groups of strangers, but not toward certain other groups. Host conformity pressure, the extent to which the environment challenges strangers to act in accordance with its language and cultural norms, varies as well across societies and communities. Culturally and ethni- cally heterogeneous environments such as large cosmopolitan cities tend to exert less conformity pressure on newcomers to change their original habitual ways. Ethnic group strength, on the other hand, tends to discourage the cross-cultural adap- tation process of individual members. Large and active ethnic communities offer their members informational, emotional, and material support systems. Although such an ethnic support system can aid newcomers’ initial cross-cultural adapta- tion, it also tends to exert a level of social pressure to maintain the ethnic practices and discourage an active participation in the host social communica- tion activities.

Predisposition

Along with the conditions of the environment, the process of cross-cultural adaptation is affected

246 Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory

by the internal conditions of individual strangers themselves. The theory identifies three key predis- positional factors: (1) preparedness, (2) ethnic proximity/distance, and (3) personality.

Strangers come to their new environment with differing levels of preparedness, that is, the mental, emotional, and motivational readiness to deal with the new cultural environment, including the under- standing of the host language and culture. Affecting such preparedness are formal and informal school- ing and training in, and media exposure to, the host language and culture, contacts and experi- ences with members of the host society, as well as prior cross-cultural adaptation experiences in gen- eral. Strangers also differ in cultural, racial, and linguistic backgrounds. Ethnic proximity (or eth- nic distance) serves as a relational concept with which a given stranger’s ethnicity and the pre- dominant ethnicity of the host environment are compared. A stranger whose ethnicity is similar to and compatible with that of the mainstream eth- nicity of the surrounding community is likely to blend in with relative ease. In addition, strangers differ in their more or less enduring personality traits. Of particular interest are those personality resources that would help facilitate an individual’s ability to endure adaptive stresses. The theory identifies openness, strength, and positivity as three particularly significant personality character- istics that enhance one’s chances for successful cross-cultural adaptation.

Intercultural Transformation

Through a progression of internal change, strangers undergo a set of identifiable changes in their habitual patterns of cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses. The theory identifies three interrelated aspects of adaptive changes: (1) func- tional fitness, (2) psychological health, and (3) the emergence of an intercultural identity.

Through the repeated activities resulting in new cultural learning and self-organizing and reorga- nizing, strangers in time achieve an increased functional fitness vis-à-vis the demands of the host environment. Successfully adapted strangers have accomplished a sense of ease, efficacy, and a desired level of effective working relationship with the host environment. Closely associated with the increased functional fitness is a higher level of

psychological health reflected in an increased sense of personal well-being and satisfaction in one’s life in the host environment. These func- tional and psychological facets of intercultural transformation are often accompanied by a subtle change in one’s identity. Employing the concept intercultural identity, the theory explains that as individuals advance in the cross-cultural adapta- tion process, their identity orientations undergo a gradual and largely unconscious transformation toward less categorical and more complex ones. That is, individuals become better able to see the common humanity among different cultures and ethnicities and locate the points of consent and complementarity beyond obvious difference and contention.

Theorems

The above-described dimensions of factors consti- tute the structural model in Kim’s cross-cultural adaptation theory. In this model, all the linkages indicate mutual stimulations (and not unidirec- tional causations). Directly or indirectly, each of these factors facilitates or impedes the adaptation process of an individual. Like a locomotive engine, the workings of each unit operating in this process affect, and are affected by, the workings of all other units. Out of this dynamic interface among the dimensions and factors arise the fluc- tuating experiences of stress, adaptation, and growth—an emerging development accompany- ing an increasing level of congruence and ease with respect to the host environment, the original culture, and the ongoing identity transformation itself.

Together, these factors offer a system of expla- nations as to why every incidence of cross- cultural adaptation takes place at its own pace and why some individuals are more successful than others in their cross-cultural transitions and eventual attainment of fitness vis-à-vis the host environment. The interlocking relationships iden- tified in the structural model are formally speci- fied in a total of 21 theorems, generalizable and predictive statements of a functional relation- ship, such as: The greater the host communica- tion competence, the greater the participation in host social (interpersonal, mass) communication (Theorem 1).

247Cross-Cultural Communication

Looking Ahead

Although intended to explain the adaptive experi- ences of individuals who relocate to a new and different cultural or subcultural environment, the core concepts and the theoretical arguments are applicable to the broader context of increasing intercultural exposures brought about by the pro- cess of globalization. Whether at home or on for- eign soil, numerous people the world over are being challenged to undergo at least some experi- ences of the stress–adaptation–growth dynamic. Through direct contacts as well as via mass media and other technological means of communication, people around the world are increasingly exposed to the images and sounds of once-distant cultures. In many urban centers, local people are routinely coming in contact with foreign-born individuals.

This emerging phenomenon of crossing cultures at home promises a new chapter in the continuing development of the cross-cultural adaptation the- ory. For now, the theory speaks to a uniquely human plasticity to adapt to the increasingly inter- cultural environment. Through the concept of intercultural identity, the theory suggests a poten- tially viable vision of being oriented to oneself and to the world in an open and flexible manner. In the project of cross-cultural adaptation, the theory suggests the new possibility for individuals any- where in the world to embark on a path of per- sonal growth, in which they stretch themselves out of the familiar and reach for a deepened and more inclusive understanding of human conditions, including their own.

Young Yun Kim

See also Communibiology; Communication Theory of Identity; Competence Theories; Complexity and Communication; Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication; Co-Orientation Theory; Cross-Cultural Communication; Intercultural Communication Competence; Intercultural Communication Theories; System Theory; Transculturation

Further Readings

Bertalanffy, L. (1975). General system theory. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human communication (pp. 6–32). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Books.

Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe: Scientific and human implications of the emerging paradigm of evolution. New York: Pergamon.

Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Toward intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being [Special issue]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 359–368.

Kim, Y. Y., & Kim, Y. S. (2004). The role of the host environment in cross-cultural adaptation: A comparative analysis of Korean expatriates in the United States and their American counterparts in South Korea. Asian Communication Research, 1, 5–25.

Kim, Y. Y., Lujan, P., & Dixon, L. (1998). “I can walk both ways”: Identity integration of American Indians in Oklahoma. Human Communication Research, 25, 252–274.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Cross-cultural communication is normally thought of as communication that takes place between members of whole cultures in contact or between their cultural spokespersons or representatives. Cross-cultural communication is distinguished from intracultural communication, which occurs between people sharing a common culture, and intercultural communication, which refers to exchanges in interpersonal settings between indi- viduals from different cultures. William B. Gudykunst identifies both intercultural communi- cation and cross-cultural communication as seg- ments of intergroup communication.

When researchers want to compare or contrast the communication of people from different cul- tures and explain how communication varies from one culture to another, then a cross-cultural com- munication study occurs. William B. Gudykunst

248 Cross-Cultural Communication

and Carmen M. Lee identify this type of research as among the several approaches for incorporating culture into communication theories. Such theoriz- ing must link dimensions of cultural variability directly with the cultural norms and rules that influence the communication behavior being explained. It must avoid oversimplifying the pro- cess or inappropriately coupling the way that the cultural variables influence cultural norms and rules or the reverse. This kind of work is of interest to several academic fields, including anthropology, communication, international relations, psychol- ogy, and sociology, and has been applied to con- cepts such as attitudes, beliefs, cognition, cross-cultural business and training, journalism, language and linguistics, mass media, nonverbal cues, organizational culture, perceptions, stereo- types, thought-patterning, and values.

Theoretical Dimensions

Several sources of cultural variation have been investigated. These include (a) power distance, or the degree to which cultures include status and power hierarchies versus relative equality; (b) individualism–collectivism, or the extent to which cultures value individual personal identity versus community identity; (c) self-construals, or the ways that people see themselves; and (d) low and high context, or the degree to which a culture relies on unstated relational dynamics versus direct verbal communication.

A number of important theories have made use of these cross-cultural distinctions. Examples include Stella Ting-Toomey’s 1985 face negotia- tion theory, which illustrates how communica- tors from different cultures manage varying practices of facework; Young Yun Kim’s 1993 conversational constraints theory, which looks at how people from different cultures choose vari- ous strategies of communication; Judee Burgoon’s 1978 expectancy violations theory, focusing on how communicators from different cultures respond when their expectations are violated; and William B. Gudykunst’s 1995 anxiety/ uncertainty management theory, which focuses on how communicators reduce uncertainty and anxiety in cross-cultural situations. As another example, communication accommodation the- ory, attributed to Howard Giles and others,

looks at the ways in which communicators accommodate various cultural practices in cross- cultural situations.

In addition, cross-cultural investigations could focus on a variety of other important variables. Michael H. Prosser in his 1978 book, The Cultural Dialogue, identified several problems that could guide this work. Among other things, it could investigate the role of conflict and con- flict resolution, the ways in which communica- tion is used for control and power, the impact of technology and especially information technol- ogy, cultural stability and cultural change, cul- tural imperialism, and cultural dependency or interdependency.

Steve J. Kulich recommends a nine-level analy- sis offering themes for cross-cultural research in which culture can be viewed in terms of (1) prop- agated mythic ideals; (2) mainstream promotion or mass trends; (3) model-citizen norms; (4) expected behavior mechanics; (5) integrated meshworks, which includes a set of real or imag- ined networks; (6) mediated metaphors; (7) mind- less personal responses to familiarity; (8) personal matrix options, such as recognizing that binary theories at each extreme end of a spectrum must realize that instead some cultures are both tradi- tional and modern at the same time; and (9) per- sonalized meaning. In the context of social science research, Kulich proposes that an integrated grid can be developed in the cross-cultural study of communication that incorporates cultural, subcultural, contextual, and individual levels of culture. An integrated grid includes cultural socialization that is passed down vertically or horizontally within a culture; socially constructed perceptions within the context of cultural groups; and personally interpreted meanings, which include conceptual perceptions within social groups and reflective and relative meanings, lead- ing to intercontextual studies. Kulich explains that at the cultural level, one needs to consider such issues as ideal myths, mass trends, and model citizen norms. At the subcultural or contextual level, he proposes that expected behavioral mechanics, integrated meshworks, and mediated metaphors need to be considered, and at the indi- vidual level, scholars need to interpret their own mindless responses, personal matrix options, and personalized meanings.

249Cross-Cultural Communication

Illustrative Examples

An early longitudinal example of major cross- cultural research efforts includes Charles E. Osgood’s Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Meaning Project, designed to find nearly universal factors of meaning across approximately 50 cul- tures. In this multinational study, 100 teenaged boys in each culture were chosen to assess 100 terms for their understandings of goodness or bad- ness, power or lack of power, and swiftness or slow- ness. This study tested and confirmed the hypotheses that regardless of language or culture, human beings use the same qualifying and descriptive framework in allocating affective meanings of concepts involv- ing attitudes, feelings, stereotypes, and values.

Desmond Morris’s study of middle-aged male usage of nonverbal gesture cues in 25 European cultures, described in his 1980 book Gestures, hypothesized and confirmed that middle-aged men living closer to the Mediterranean Sea, and already strongly fixed in their own national culture behav- iors, would utilize far more exaggerated and bolder gestures than would those middle-aged men living in the northern European or Scandinavian coun- tries. Also, the hypothesis that the former group would have more gestures with sexual implications than the northern European or Scandinavian cul- tures was generally confirmed. Later, in his 1994 book, Bodytalk: A World Guide to Gestures, more cross-cultural nonverbal studies were significantly explored in a much wider geographical range.

In the 9-day 1974 bicultural Japanese–American research conference in Nihonmatsu, Japan, the research team hypothesized that Japanese partici- pants would be more task oriented and Americans would be more process oriented. Not surprisingly, it was found that the younger Japanese and American participants were more process oriented, while the older Japanese and Americans were more task oriented, thus disconfirming the hypothesis. Michael H. Prosser’s book The Cultural Dialogue discusses this research conference, providing the essence of the bicultural dialogue that occurred there.

One of the most important cross-cultural stud- ies of national attitudes and values was Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede’s analysis of 116,000 responses. Based on this study, he initially pro- posed the development of four national cultural

dimensions—uncertainty avoidance, power dis- tance, individualism versus collectivism, and mas- culinity versus femininity. Michael Harris Bond added a fifth dimension in 1987 called Confucian dynamism, also known as short-term versus long- term orientation. Uncertainty avoidance specifies the level to which members of a national culture avoid or accept uncertainty; power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of organi- zations and institutions accept unequal distribu- tions of power. Masculinity versus femininity, more recently described as aggressiveness versus nurturing, emphasizes how a national culture manages its gender issues.

Individualism versus collectivism, initially pro- posed by cross-cultural psychologist Harry C. Triandis, focuses on whether members of a national culture are more oriented to individual versus collective or communitarian values. The Chinese Culture Connection in 1987 proposed that Hofstede’s Western bias needs to be supplemented by a Chinese methodological bias of Confucianism. This cultural variability dimension has three aspects: status relationships; integration, or har- mony with others; and moral discipline. In 2008, Hofstede added two new dimensions: indulgence versus restraint and monumentalism versus flexu- mility or flexible humility. These new dimensions have been articulated in his essay “Dimensionalizing Culture: Hofstede Model Context,” in Steve J. Kulich and Michael H. Prosser’s forthcoming coedited book Cross-Cultural Value Studies, and still need testing.

Western Versus Non-Western Cross-Cultural Problems

Many early cross-cultural studies focused on com- parisons between American and Japanese, American and European, or American and Soviet cultural pat- terns. More recently, considerable research has emphasized contrasting cultural aspects of the Americans and Chinese or Chinese and other Westerners. Michael Harris Bond recommends that while these bicultural studies are useful, including those by cross-cultural psychologists, they use Western research methods to deal with indigenous cultural patterns. He urges cross-cultural research- ers to move toward more pancultural studies, as Hofstede’s studies have done, and that for serious

250 Cross-Cultural Communication

reliability, at least 10 cultural groups are needed when standard social science statistical measure- ments are used.

CHANG, Hui-ching proposes that in building cross-cultural theory incorporating both Western and Asian ideologies, the central starting point for several Asian societies must be Confucianism. This requires the recognition that Asian cross-cultural theories about relationships, intimacy, interper- sonal communication, and intercultural communi- cation have Confucian roots. However, at the same time, Confucianism must be integrated with mod- ern theories and must compete with both ancient and contemporary Western and other Asian theo- ries. Her research program, leading to the potential construction of cross-cultural theories, first explored folk concepts leading to relationships developed in Chinese society and then showed how these rela- tionships develop between the East and the West through cultural exchanges such as popular books, workshops, and seminars. Finally, she shows how these relationship ideals develop and expand microculturally through the ordinary language that Chinese use in their daily lives. Fundamentally, she believes that cross-cultural theory construction for a society such as China must concentrate on how the Chinese create these relationships through their modern daily use of language. Cross-cultural resear- chers in such a setting ideally should be bilingual, both in a Western language and in Chinese.

HWANG, Kwang-Kuo also argues that the development of social scientific cross-cultural research in the indigenous Asian setting is problem- atic because Western social science methods are not always appropriate to study indigenous Asian cul- tural factors. He believes that Western social sci- ence theories, or the scientific microworld versus the indigenous Asian lifeworld for intellectuals in non-Western countries, have serious limitations as the philosophy of science for constructing a scien- tific microworld is essentially a product of alien cultures inconsistent with practical Asian cultural traditions. Thus, a cross-cultural communication researcher must construct a tentative theory to solve scientific problems caused by inconsistencies between Western theories and the observed phe- nomena or results of experiments in more tradi- tional Asian societies, contradictions within a system or theory, and conflicts between the two types of theories. For example, formal justice in

Western scientific cross-cultural studies includes such basic elements as authority in an unequal rela- tionship but does not practically consider the notion of Confucian respect for the superior in determining what is just.

Referring to cross-cultural communication studies for Chinese scholars as illustrative, GUAN, Shije notes several problems for China, and by implication for other Asian cultures: (a) More dia- lectical research is conducted than empirical stud- ies; (b) too much research is conducted in individual disciplines rather than on an interdisci- plinary basis; (c) more general introductions are provided than on specific topics with Chinese characteristics; (d) more Sino–U.S. research is done than comparisons of China with other coun- tries; and (e) more international studies than domestic cross-cultural research are done of dif- ferent Chinese communities in the mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and in the Chinese diaspora. He argues that this singularity of research meth- odology and focus has been a bottleneck in restraining further in-depth cross-cultural Chinese and Asian communication research.

Summary

It is impossible to completely separate the theo- retical study of intercultural and cross-cultural communication. Gudykunst notes that before the late 1970s, when he began his doctoral studies, there were few, if any, reliable and valid theories for the study of either type of communication. As the study of intercultural and cross-cultural theo- ries has matured, many new actual theories have been developed, tested, and confirmed or discon- firmed. Still more cross-cultural theories will develop over time that can be tested in a reliable and valid manner. New social science statistical measurements can help researchers hypothesize and test these theories, adding to the mature devel- opment of cross-cultural theoretical constructs.

Michael H. Prosser

See also Accommodation Theory; Asian Communication Theory; Confucian Communication Theory; Conversational Constraints Theory; Cultural Types Theories; Culture and Communication; Expectancy Violations Theory; Face Negotiation Theory; Facework Theories; Intercultural Communication

251Cross-Cultural Decision Making

Theories; International Communication Theories; Uncertainty Management Theories; Values Studies: History and Concepts; Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and Frameworks

Further Readings

Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (2005). Foundations of intercultural communication. Lanham, MD: UPA.

Gudykunst, W. B. (Ed.). (2003). Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kulich, S. J., & Prosser, M. H. (Eds.). (2007). Intercultural perspectives on Chinese communication. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Kulich, S. J., & Prosser, M. H. (Eds.). (in press). Cross- cultural value applications. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Language Press.

Kulich, S. J., & Prosser, M. H. (Eds.). (in press). Cross- cultural value studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Education Language Press.

Prosser, M. H. (Ed.). (1973). Intercommunication among nations and peoples. New York: Harper & Row.

Prosser, M. H. (1978). The cultural dialogue: An introduction to intercultural communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Prosser, M. H., & Sitaram, K. S. (Eds.). (1999). Civic discourse: Intercultural, international and global media. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDonald, E. R. (2008). Intercultural communication: A reader (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sitaram, K. S., & Prosser, M. H. (Eds.). (1998). Civic discourse: Multiculturalism, cultural diversity, and global communication. Westport, CT: Ablex.

CROSS-CULTURAL DECISION MAKING

Organizations of today are becoming increasingly multicultural. Workers, managers, as well as pro- fessionals are crossing national boundaries and, as a result, facing a variety of intercultural conflicts. While there are numerous factors involved in such conflicts, differences in the nature and style of deci- sion making seem to be one of the major sources of

confusion and frustration among the interacting members of such organizations.

Organizational theorists and psychologists as well as small-group communication scholars have argued for years about how people make deci- sions. Many articles and books have been written on decision making in relation to leadership, plan- ning, and group process. Statistical decision mak- ing is also a popular area for study in the West, where decision making has generally been consid- ered as an individual mental process involving the identification of a problem, consideration of the problem, and selection of the course of action for solving the problem. However, in Japan, for exam- ple, people do not seem to make decisions in the Western sense of the word. Decisions might be made somewhere by someone, but it is difficult to clearly identify the locus of the decision.

The realities of decision making in various parts of the world have not been thoroughly examined. In 1951, Fred N. Kerlinger asserted that the man- ner of reaching decisions is related to the patterns of thinking, because most people use, almost with- out thinking about or questioning it, the processes that have been handed down to them as part of their cultural heritage. Edward Stewart developed a theory of cross-cultural decision making by asserting that although decision making is rooted in a universal structure of cognition, once these structures are transformed and function as pro- cesses or operations, their evaluation and fre- quency differ from society to society. He further argues that decision making is a process or form bridging the gap between the internal mental pro- cess and action, and therefore, the values and assumptions embodied in different cultures affect the manner and rationality of decision making. Hence, more research is needed on cross-cultural decision making, comparing decision-making styles across cultures.

U.S. American and Japanese Decision Making

Decision making in organizations is complex in nature and form and differs greatly, depending on the particular context in which such decisions are made. For the purpose of comparison, however, research indicates that there are at least four compo- nents that can be examined cross-culturally: (1) the

252 Cross-Cultural Decision Making

decision maker, (2) the process and nature of discus- sion, (3) temporal aspects of decision making, and (4) mode of arriving at a decision.

The first component in decision making is the decision maker. In most U.S. organizations, the individual is the decision maker. The leader of the group is in a position to perceive a problem that requires solution. After consulting with some specialists or collecting relevant information, the leader selects one of the alternative plans for solu- tion. Stewart argues that throughout one’s upbring- ing, the American individual is encouraged to decide for himself, develop her own opinion, solve his own problems, have her own things, and in general learn to view the world through the point of the self. Because of these strong attachments of the self to the decision maker, the individual is likely to believe he or she is the locus of decision making even when forced to accept the effects of others’ decisions on his or her life.

In contrast, it is difficult to see who the actual decision maker is in Japanese organizations. The role of the leader is to bring up the proposed idea and facilitate the discussion among small groups. The leader does not have to have special, profes- sional, or technical knowledge about the subject matter. Rather, what is needed as a leader is to grasp the flow of discussion by being sensitive to the emotional feelings of participants.

In the second component of decision making— the process and nature of discussion—the leader of the group in U.S. organizations often holds meetings where the leader proposes an idea, explains the background leading to the proposal, and asks participants to judge whether the pro- posal is good enough to be approved or not. In other words, discussion continues through the stated agenda, and agreement is often reached after frank exchange of opinions among group members.

Discussion in Japanese meetings, on the other hand, might be perceived as somewhat ceremonial or ritualistic. The proposal, mostly agreed on through prior consultation among the members con- cerned, will be presented at the meeting. Even if the group is unable to reach agreement in prior discus- sion, the leader will not put the proposed idea on the agenda at the formal meeting.

In the third component of decision making or its temporal dimension, promptness is the utmost

concern of members in U.S. organizations. Before the meeting is held, the agenda will be sent out in advance to group members, either as documents or in e-mails. At the meeting, the time will be spent sequentially moving from proposal to explanation, and then to question and answers, often to be fol- lowed by voting. While decisions themselves are made swiftly, chances are that the implementation of decisions will be slow as the members concerned must be persuaded to go along with it.

In Japanese organizations, the meeting is likely to last until agreement is reached. What is valued in the meeting is that everyone spends some time together sitting face-to-face to consider the pro- posal. The participants may disclose their own opinions with much reservation. In such a case, the meeting will take an extremely long time until a decision is reached. However, once the decision is made, its execution is swift and thorough, as everyone concerned is well aware of how to carry out the proposed decision.

In the fourth component, mode of arriving at a decision, the typical U.S. American mode of decision making is either by announcement on the part of the leader or by majority voting. The leader tries hard to push through the proposal. The leader is expected to explain the decision and to offer the others reasons for considering such a proposal. The deliberation is focused on whether the proposal can be either sup- ported or rejected.

In Japan, all possible effort will be made to achieve consensus before and during the meeting. The leader serves as a moderator, presiding over the meeting and working to reach consensus on the proposal. In the process, participants might say that the meeting went well, and the will of all the members is solidified so that acceptance and implementation of the proposal becomes possible.

Communication Styles

Communication style also differs cross-culturally during the process of decision making. According to Kume, two contrastive prototypes of communi- cation styles in the process of decision making have emerged from the research: mawashi and tooshi. Mawashi (a Japanese expression that means to circulate or rotate) is defined as a way of reaching consensus by passing around a particular view almost endlessly among members of a group,

253Cultivation Theory

whereas tooshi (which in Japanese means to push through or have one’s own way) is defined as a direct communication style of an individual’s expressing his or her view clearly so that the idea can be accepted by all the members concerned or at least accepted by all through majority voting.

In mawashi style, people communicate by circu- lating their ideas or hinting at something indirectly, while in tooshi style a leader’s idea is adopted as long as it is convincing enough to everyone con- cerned. What is emphasized in tooshi style is the persuasiveness on the part of the leader, which is in a sharp contrast to mawashi style, in which you are concerned about how your message is interpreted by the other people involved. By circulating your ideas in the form of indirection, polite expressions, or even self-deprecatory expressions, the other members of the groups are engaged, so to speak, in a synchronization of thoughts and feelings.

This simplistic dichotomy of mawashi and tooshi is merely intended to emphasize that there might be profound differences in the manner by which people of different cultural backgrounds communicate. This also indicates that any two cul- tural groups might have different perceptions and approaches to decision making in meetings. It also implies that even within the same organization, the above two styles can be interchangeably employed, depending on the nature of the organization, its leadership, the kind of decision to be made, and the attitudes of participants toward the meeting.

The understanding of culture in decision mak- ing should not be limited to national culture, but could be extended to subcultures or co-cultures. For example, a detailed case study was conducted by Lea P. Stewart in 1985 to illustrate the conflict resulting from sharply different styles of decision making between engineers and nontechnical man- agers. Furthermore, because decision making natu- rally involves an ethical dimension, the question of who should be responsible for the decision can be cross-culturally explored, even though the ques- tion of accountability in another culture is not considered as important as in the United States. Continued research on cross-cultural decision making can be expected to continue to provide useful information for those who are working in multicultural organizations.

Teruyuki Kume

See also Cross-Cultural Communication; Culture and Communication; Effective Intercultural Workgroup Communication Theory; Group Communication Theories; Organizational Communication Theories

Further Readings

Adler, N. J. (2002). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western/Thomson.

Kume, T. (2007). Contrastive prototypes of communication styles in decision-making: Mawashi style vs. tooshi style. In M. Hinner (Ed.), The influence of culture in the world of business (pp. 211–227). New York: Peter Lang.

Oetzel, J. G. (2005). Effective intercultural workgroup communication theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 351–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stewart, E. C. (1985). Culture and decision-making. In W. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture and organizational processes (pp. 177–211). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stewart, L. P. (1985). Subjective culture and organizational decision-making. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture and organizational processes (pp. 212–230). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

CULTIVATION THEORY

Cultivation, also known as cultivation theory or cultivation analysis, is the area of communication research that investigates relationships between exposure to television and beliefs and attitudes about the world. Briefly, cultivation hypothesizes that heavy viewers of television will be more likely to hold beliefs and conceptions about the world that are congruent with what they see on televi- sion. For example, television programs are often seen to be highly violent; cultivation hypothesizes that heavy viewers of television will be more likely to see the world as a violent place.

Cultivation was an outgrowth of the Cultural Indicators project, a research program begun by George Gerbner at the Annenberg School for Communication in the late 1960s. The Cultural Indicators project began by documenting levels of violence and other socially relevant information

254 Cultivation Theory

(such as portrayals of women and minorities) in prime-time and children’s programs. As the project began to assert that, for instance, television was overtly and overly violent, cultivation was devel- oped as a way to ascertain whether viewing con- tributed in any way to viewers’ conceptions and beliefs about the world.

The basic hypothesis of cultivation, though ques- tioned by some, is that watching a great deal of television will be associated with a tendency to hold specific and distinct conceptions of reality, concep- tions that are congruent with the most consistent and pervasive images and values of the medium. Yet there has been a great deal of interest in, criticism of, debate about, and support for the basic idea of cul- tivation, a research tradition that continues to be strong over 30 years after its inception.

The first cultivation results were introduced by George Gerbner and Larry Gross in 1976, in a Journal of Communication article titled “Living With Television: The Violence Profile.” In addi- tion to presenting results showing relatively high levels of televised violence on the major networks, Gerbner and Gross showed that heavy television viewers were more likely to overestimate the pro- portion of people involved in law enforcement and were more likely to say that others can’t be trusted and to overestimate their own chances of being a victim of violence. Such findings eventually led to the notion of the mean world syndrome, in which heavy viewers are more likely to see the world as a scary, mean, violent, and dangerous place. This work led to a profusion of tests of the cultivation hypothesis in many different domains, but first there were criticisms to deal with.

Criticisms

Soon after the appearance of the cultivation hypothesis and its early tests, various criticisms were leveled from social scientists. Some criticisms were offered from a “humanistic” perspective, arguing that viewers interpret violence very differ- ently and that aggregating responses to survey questions would miss these differences. Gerbner and Gross defended cultivation theory against these criticisms, arguing that individuals would certainly be likely to have different interpretations of violence but that aggregate patterns were also meaningful. They suggested that tests of such

patterns were themselves useful for determining whether or not television’s messages, seen as an overall system, were in any way related to viewers’ conceptions. As has been found consistently since Gerbner and Gross’s original study, viewing has shown a small but significant relationship with viewers’ conceptions, often over and above con- trols for other important variables.

Other criticisms claiming to disconfirm cultiva- tion were offered from countries such as Great Britain, where similar results were not found. In this case, however, it seemed clear that differences in the programming systems between the two countries could be a major explanatory factor. Since then, numerous studies of cultivation have been carried out in countries other than the United States, many confirming cultivation.

Another criticism was that cultivation might really be an artifact of the fact that people living in high-crime areas might watch more television; thus, cultivation would be a spurious artifact of this three-way relationship. In response to these criticisms, Gerbner and his colleagues found that fear of crime was actually enhanced by television viewing in the high-crime areas, a phenomenon they termed resonance. This term was meant to denote a phenomenon in which the lived experi- ence of the individual would be confirmed in the television world, resulting in higher cultivation relationships for those individuals.

Mainstreaming

Other criticisms used multivariate statistical tech- niques to show that cultivation relationships would disappear if researchers controlled for other impor- tant variables. Indeed, in most cases, simple culti- vation relationships are often reduced or eliminated when multiple controls are applied. However, at about the time these criticisms were appearing, Gerbner and his colleagues were reanalyzing data with an eye toward specifying when and where the cultivation relationships might be stronger. The most important idea to emerge from these analyses was that of mainstreaming.

Mainstreaming is the phenomenon in which groups that would otherwise differ on opinions and beliefs about issues become more similar to one another when they view television heavily. The idea is that television’s message system draws its

255Cultivation Theory

heavy viewers closer to a mainstream position. Thus, for instance, while liberals and conservatives would be expected to disagree on an issue such as whether abortion should be available (and they do), the difference is much smaller between liberals and conservatives who are heavy viewers. Gerbner and his colleagues eventually saw mainstreaming as working toward a blurring of views and ideol- ogy toward a somewhat conservative mainstream that would be favored by the corporate-controlled media system. Mainstreaming and resonance did not completely resolve the debates about cultiva- tion, but the cultivation hypothesis did not go away and has been tested dozens of times in vari- ous studies since the 1970s.

Findings

After the violence results emerged, cultivation studies were carried out on a variety of issues. Studies found that television viewing was associ- ated with a tendency toward greater conservatism. Television appeared to cultivate less tolerance of minorities and out-groups. For instance, several studies showed that heavy viewers were more likely to favor keeping women in “traditional” sex roles, which was not surprising given that women were outnumbered by men on television and often shown in traditional roles such as housewife, sec- retary, or nurse. Television was shown to also cultivate less tolerance for groups that were not shown very much, such as gay men and lesbians. The notion of symbolic annihilation suggested that invisibility in the world of television could be as important as actively negative portrayals.

The list of issues that cultivation has addressed is virtually endless. While a majority of studies have concentrated on issues such as violence and crime, ideology, and the roles of different demographic groups, other questions have been investigated. These include perceptions of science, religion, the environment, and belief in the paranormal, among many others. Overall, the published studies have consistently shown that television viewing shows small but significant relationships with perceptions about many phenomena, often after controlling for a variety of other variables. As would be expected, the studies have grown in methodological sophisti- cation. Also, the community of researchers testing cultivation grew; while Gerbner and colleagues

conducted many of the original studies, researchers around the world have picked up cultivation ideas. Even now, and despite enormous changes in the media system, cultivation is still generally accepted as one of the most important and testable proposi- tions within media effects research.

Meta-Analysis

In 1997, Michael Morgan and James Shanahan meta-analyzed 52 independent studies of cultiva- tion, representing over 20 years of cultivation work. Meta-analysis is used as an alternative to the traditional narrative literature review. It compiles results from all extant studies, converts their find- ings to a similar metric, and then weights the effects for sample size to produce an overall estimate of the “true” cultivation effect. While single studies are more open to problems such as sampling error, meta-analyses can give a truer picture by virtue of their compilation of many studies, resulting in a much larger sample. Morgan and Shanahan found that, on average, the cultivation effect was about .09 (expressed in Pearson’s r). Thus, they argued, as Gerbner and Gross had done earlier, that television viewing does make a small but significant contribu- tion to viewers’ perceptions of reality.

They found, however, that the effect size dif- fered when tested in different ways. Small sample sizes tended to yield larger estimates, for instance. Expanding on this meta-analysis in 1999, Shanahan and Morgan found, for instance, that cultivation effects were higher for self-identified liberals than moderates or conservatives. That is, while self- identified liberals differ from conservatives on many issues, the differences between light- and heavy-viewing self-identified liberals are the most marked, with heavy-viewing liberals scoring much closer to the moderates and conservatives. This finding is very consistent with the notion of main- streaming discussed above. All in all, then, the meta-analysis showed that cultivation has revealed a fairly consistent pattern of effect, with an effect size not dissimilar to that revealed in meta-analyses of other theories of media effects.

Psychological Mechanisms

Early on, some investigators opined that cultiva- tion contained no psychological or cognitive

256 Cultivation Theory

explanation of how cultivation worked. While Gerbner and his colleagues were less interested in this question—they tended to be more focused on television from the macrosocial perspective— others put forth tentative explanations. Some early studies sought to break down the cultivation process into steps, such as acquisition and con- struction. In the first step, viewers would acquire knowledge from their accumulated viewing expe- rience, which would then be cognitively aggre- gated into a view of the world consistent with television’s messages. Such explanations tended to differ between first-order beliefs (simple percep- tions of facts about the world) and second-order beliefs (more complex views of the world, such as attitudes or ideology). However, while these terms remain in use in some studies, Gerbner and associ- ates did not find them useful and abandoned them as a potential cognitive explanation.

Perceived reality was another mechanism offered to explain cultivation. It was argued that viewers who saw television as more real would be more likely to show evidence of cultivation. Though some studies were done with suggestive results, perceived reality never gained acceptance as the cognitive explanation of cultivation.

Another approach focused on memory. Researchers argued that viewers’ memories about a topic could provide a better prediction of beliefs than media exposure. However, few convincing tests of this idea were offered. Elaborating on this idea, other researchers proposed that people who confuse news for fiction would be more likely to give television answers (i.e., answer questions with information received from television), and some evidence was shown for this.

However, the most convincing evidence for a cognitive explanation of cultivation came from L. J. Shrum, who wondered whether viewers con- sider judgments of reality at all when answering questions about the world. He used a heuristic model to explain why heavy viewers would give television answers. Simply put, he argues that most people do not give thoughtful answers to ques- tions; rather, they rely on whatever information seems most readily available to them. They do not systematically scan their memories for relevant information; rather, they take what is most readily available. Shrum has conducted many studies that show that heavy television viewers will give

television answers to questions (such as, for instance, perceptions about material wealth), and they will give answers more quickly than light viewers will. These results suggest that television viewers have simply accumulated more informa- tion about various television-related topics from television than light viewers have. The fact that they answer more quickly indicates that they are accessing this information more heuristically than systematically. That is, heavy viewers are not ratio- nally considering their options; they are just draw- ing from the stories, images, and representations they have seen on television more frequently and more rapidly than light viewers are. As of now, Shrum’s ideas stand as the most plausible account of how cultivation works psychologically.

Future of Cultivation

Much is changing in the media world. When Gerbner began investigating cultivation, there were three dominant television networks; now there is a plethora of cable channels available. And other sources of information and entertainment exist that can compete with television: videogames, the Internet, VCRs/DVDs, and the like. For some, this means that the era of cultivation is over, as viewers can choose and manage their own program choices. As some of these changes emerged, however, Gerbner argued that the media world was still a corporate-controlled entity and that media indus- tries would find ways to dominate the world of storytelling and connect it to advertising.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether cul- tivation effects will hold up over the long term. Other investigators are pushing toward questions such as whether exposure to specific genres of tele- vision produces cultivation effects. Others are looking at long-term questions, such as whether cultivation is a theory of social stasis, or how culti- vation deals with social changes. With the existence of data sets that now cover more than 40 years, researchers are only beginning to speculate about television’s role in the processes of social change.

James Shanahan

See also Broadcasting Theories; Cultural Indicators; Media and Mass Communication Theories; Media Effects Theories

257Cultural Contracts Theory

Further Readings

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173–199.

Morgan, M. (Ed.). (2002). Against the mainstream: Selected writings of George Gerbner. New York: Peter Lang.

Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. London: Cambridge University Press.

Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective. Communication Research, 22, 402–429.

Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (Eds.). (1990). Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

CULTURAL CONTRACTS THEORY

Cultural contracts theory was created by Ronald L. Jackson II in 2002 to respond to the ongoing dis- cussion about identity negotiation throughout research in the humanities and social sciences. While it might seem obvious that this theory ema- nated from sociologist Charles W. Mills’s 1997 racial contracts treatise, the author was unaware of Mills’s work until nearly 3 years after the cul- tural contracts theory was established. The theory actually has its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s 1762 explication of the social contract, which was a moral and philosophical essay on the implica- tions of national sovereignty and the maintenance of social order. This early document spawned a lot of debate about freedom, independence, auton- omy, and citizen obligation to social order. The cultural contracts theory is aligned with Mills’s theory to the extent that it is aware of and respon- sive to power inequities that destabilize or imbal- ance interaction and ultimately instigate cultural identity negotiation.

Jackson actually thought about the contracts metaphor when buying a home. He noted the simi- larities between communicating one’s preferences in important life negotiations such as buying a

home and negotiating one’s identity with a stranger whom we expect to behave or proceed in a certain way. In these kinds of interactions, one’s values, norms, beliefs, and patterns of communication— indeed one’s culture—are revealed within the encounter. Likewise, people negotiate differences in opinion, style, and orientation in these sorts of transactions. Whether two people are meeting one another for the first time or have been acquainted for years, they must still coordinate their relation- ship by understanding the other’s culture. Just as in a home-purchase contract, everyday communica- tion contains “small print,” with hidden features of a relationship. In identity negotiation, the small print can be about hidden motives but is often about hidden insecurities that come as a result of past experiences. All of this complicates the encoun- ter and is exacerbated in intercultural interactions where race, gender, and class all come to bear.

Cultural Contracts in Operation

Drawing from the literature on identities as well as previous studies conducted on how intercultural relationships are formed and sustained, Jackson asked, what about one’s identity is actually being negotiated, and how does that happen? When people interact, their identities will overlap to a greater or lesser extent. The co-orientation process that occurs in interaction can be seen as identity negotiation, which involves varying degrees of cooperation. The resulting agreement is a “con- tract” that specifies the rules and conditions for mutual identity management. These contracts function to preserve, protect, and define the self as it meets up with others.

At the core of cultural contracts theory is the metaphor of negotiation. Identities are not simply conceded while communicating; rather, there is an attempt to hold onto and negotiate aspects that define who one is. This process permits at least two options: One can elect to assimilate or accom- modate, or one can negotiate the relationship anew by signing another contract.

What happens if both interactants see themselves as “leader”? What if there are cultural differences in their definitions of leadership? What if both want to enact their identities in response to another? These are all critical questions. In every communi- cation encounter, people are communicating their

258 Cultural Contracts Theory

worldviews and what they value, and they must continuously engage this process in juxtaposition with others.

Use of the word cultural in the theory is deliber- ate. Even if one is incapable of articulating the specificities of his or her worldview, there are still cultural norms and beliefs that influence how people behave on a daily basis. So, the theory maintains that everyone has a cultural contract. It is impossible to be without at least one; otherwise there would be no means of knowing what is appropriate or effective in a given culture.

Cultural contracts theory is based on three premises or axioms about the processes and out- comes of identity negotiation engagement: (1) iden- tities require affirmation, (2) identities are constantly being exchanged, and (3) identities are contractual. To say that identities require affirmation is to say that there are multiple ways to think of identity. It essentially refers to a self-definition that is commu- nicatively affirmed or validated by others. Postcolonialist and psychiatrist Frantz Fanon goes so far as to say that speaking enables one to be alive for others, which suggests that there is an interde- pendent function to human interaction; each of us comes to understand the self by knowing what the self is not. We know what it means to be rich by contrast to what it means to be poor. We know what is right by acknowledging what is wrong.

In the process of establishing who one is, there is a sharing and exchange of self-definitions and worldviews—and this is the second axiom of cul- tural contracts theory. Communication is inevitable and happens all the time; even when we think we are not communicating, we are. And while it is simple to suggest that humans communicate con- stantly, it is much more complicated to argue effec- tively for how one exchanges identities or portions of identities while interacting. Clearly, differences of identities imply a need for relational coordination.

Metaphorically speaking, then, there is a need for “contracts” that figuratively stipulate the rules of engagement among cultural group members within and outside a given culture. Social rules and laws become guideposts for acceptable and normal interaction; compliant behavior confirms your sig- nature on the contract. The term cultural contracts refers to the end product of identity negotiation; hence, every “signed” or agreed-on cultural con- tract has a direct impact on one’s identity.

At some point in their lives, people all have to decide to accept and abide by the cultural values, norms, beliefs, and communication patterns of a given culture as a template for how to behave; hence, our cultural contracts reflect our world- views. This worldview shifts over time and during critical incidents with relational partners. The effect on identities, whether it is a shifting or solidifying move, depends on the significance of the initiating incident and/or nature of the identity negotiation process. At times, the negotiated shift in identity is so dramatic that a contract breach or violation occurs, with one of three possible out- comes: ending or disrupting the relationship; devising an original or amended contract; or con- ceding, usually because of the high value given to the relationship or the high costs of leaving the relationship.

Types of Cultural Contracts

Three basic types of cultural contract have been identified: Ready-to-sign, quasi-completed, and cocreated. Each kind of contract reveals how people have personally and socially constructed how they define themselves. Ready-to-sign cul- tural contracts are prenegotiated; the parties do not permit any further negotiation of the con- tract. These contracts are designed to promote assimilation or maintain one’s own worldview. Those who seek to introduce a ready-to-sign con- tract are often firmly entrenched in their own perspective and are not interested in others’ worldviews. Essentially, they take their cultural understandings into every encounter and have no interest in learning about other cultural tradi- tions, values, norms, and beliefs. As the most rigid of the contract types, the ready-to-sign cul- tural contract is the type that dominant groups often “hold in their pocket,” ready to present to marginalized group members. The reason that language forms such as Ebonics have not reached full political legitimacy as a language form can be explained by the ready-to-sign contract prevalent in Canada and the United States that refuses to recognize the standards, structure, and function of Ebonics—or of any language or language variation that contests one form of English as the appropriate and normal standard of American speech.

259Cultural Contracts Theory

Quasi-completed cultural contracts consist of some prenegotiated agreements and some agree- ments to agree to relationally coordinate one’s identities with those of another. These are perhaps the most common type of cultural contract, and they are ordinarily short-term episodes of identity shifting. People code switch every day when they go to work or school or participate in formal pub- lic events and activities. People also use different contracts for different people. The person who feels compelled to code switch with you may not code switch with someone else, or perhaps not in the same way. Signers of the quasi-completed con- tract may do so because they want both options available: They want to have the option of main- taining their own worldviews, and they want to have the option of cocreating with others. These individuals, in other words, waver in their interest to relationally coordinate. In addition, some quasi- completed contacts are “signed” as self-protection in order to avoid stress. For example, some African Americans try to “talk proper” on the telephone by changing their tonality and inflection to “sound White” in order to avoid racially biased treatment such as linguistic profiling.

The third kind of contract, the cocreated cultural contract, is fully negotiable. Cocreated cultural contracts are the ideal kinds of social agreements we would like to have with cultural others because people from cultures other than our own are inter- ested in fully valuing difference. If a cultural con- tract is cocreated, differences are fully acknowledged and valued. Cultural differences are not ignored, and they are not the only reason the two partners are in relationship. “Signing” this type of contract indicates an openness and embrace of other ways of seeing the world. Mutual satisfaction, rather than obligation to the requirements of the other’s cul- ture, is the centerpiece of such relationships.

Cocreated contracts, in the end, however, are behavioral. That is, mere talk about harmony and cohesiveness does not manifest into a cocreated contract; one must also demonstrate the uncondi- tional appreciation and valuation of the other person. This is perhaps discussed and exhibited most as it relates to romantic interpersonal rela- tionships, especially interracial ones. The cocre- ated contract stipulations for interracial romantic relationships, for example, typically include acknowledgment and appreciation of the cultural

ancestries, values, norms, beliefs, practices, and patterns that govern the partners’ behaviors as individuals and as partners.

Limitations

While cultural contracts theory asserts that taking into account others’ values is routine in daily inter- actions, what is not so clear in this theory is how each of us develops, sustains, or shifts our cultural contracts over time. Also, how does one move from one contract to another with different peo- ple? When and why do we identity shift or code switch with different people? All of these questions are raised in this paradigm. At the same time, it cannot reasonably answer every question about human interaction; nor should it be expected to. Rather, it points out dynamics familiar to mar- riages, teams, corporations, churches, schools, and everyday acquaintances, offering a way to under- stand a phenomenon that occurs instantly when we interact with others in one episode or through- out time. We negotiate identities so quickly that we are not always aware that it is happening.

Unlike uncertainty reduction theory, which is mainly about initial interaction, cultural contracts theory holds that we all have at least one culture we claim and that serves as a guide for how we interact with others. Even in our attempts to be elusive and try not to claim any given culture, the way we behave tattles on us and reminds us about how we live in the world and about what we value. Such values sometimes affirm and sometimes violate our expectancies about others and lead to negotiation, accommodation, and reassessment of contracts.

Ronald L. Jackson II

See also Accommodation Theory; Communication Theory of Identity; Cultural Identity Theory; Cultural Performance Theory; Culture and Communication; Expectancy Violations Theory; Face Negotiation Theory; Identity Theories; Relational Development

Further Readings

Baugh, J. (2000). Racial identification by speech. American Speech, 75(4), 362–364.

Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove.

Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Ribeau, S. A. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity

260 Cultural Identity Theory

and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jackson, R. L. (1999). The negotiation of cultural identity. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Jackson, R. L. (2002). Cultural contracts theory: Toward an understanding of identity negotiation. Communication Quarterly, 50, 359–367.

Jackson, R. L. (2002). Exploring African American identity negotiation in the academy: Toward a transformative vision of African American communication scholarship. Howard Journal of Communication, 2, 43–57.

Jackson, R. L., & Crawley, R. L. (2003). White student confessions about a Black male professor: A cultural contracts theory approach to intimate conversations about race and worldview. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12, 25–41.

CULTURAL IDENTITY THEORY

Cultural identity theory (CIT) is one of several theories developed to build knowledge about the communicative processes in use by individuals to construct and negotiate their cultural group identi- ties and relationships in particular contexts. Originally developed in the late 1980s, the theory has significantly evolved through continuing col- laborative projects in various international sites and diverse regions in the United States. Early ver- sions emphasized an interpretive theoretical per- spective, social construction, and individuals’ discursive accounts of experiences, while versions after 2000 have been broadened to incorporate a critical perspective and to include attention to contextual structures, ideologies, and status hier- archies. Research guided by the theory today most often includes discursive analysis of public and interview texts focusing on the forms through which cultural-identity positions and intercultural relationships are negotiated, the role of privilege in the outcomes of discourse, and implications for intercultural relations and social justice.

Early Interpretive Versions of Cultural Identity Theory

Early CIT work was characterized by an interpre- tive theoretical perspective, in which cultural identity processes were described, but not

critiqued. Mary Jane Collier and Milt Thomas combined the ethnography of communication and social construction and from there proposed sev- eral properties of the enactment, or creation, of cultural identity evident in communication texts. First they argued that individuals’ messages dur- ing interaction may contain multiple types of cultural identities, such as national, racial, ethnic, class related, sex and gender based, political, and religious. Because individuals enact multiple iden- tities, all voices within each identity group do not speak in the same way or have the same recogni- tion by others.

Diversity, both within and between groups, became a key principle and was examined in sev- eral research studies. For instance, in the mid- 1990s, Mary Jane Collier, Michael Hecht, and Sidney Ribeau demonstrated the multivocality, or different expressions, of African American iden- tity, as well as some broad patterns of conduct and norms providing evidence of various ethnic identi- ties among African Americans.

Early CIT also proposed that individuals’ cul- tural identities differ in salience and relative impor- tance across situational contexts, time, and interactions. In a study on ethnically identified col- lege students’ communication with acquaintances in the mid-1980s, Collier found that ethnic similar- ity and difference between the individual and his or her acquaintance were factors that affected how much cultural identity stands out.

A third property of this early work was the varying scope or prevalence with which the par- ticular forms of cultural identities are visible. When Collier studied conflict among friends identifying as Latino/a, Asian American, African American, and Anglo American in the United States, she found that there were some similarities in cultural norms for members of each ethnic group, as well as within-group differences with regard to gender and the nature of the relationship.

A fourth property of early CIT work was related to who constructs or produces the cultural identity and the ways in which these identities are commu- nicated. Two processes were found—avowal and ascription. Avowal was defined as personal articu- lation of one’s views about group identity, and ascription referred to how one refers to others. The most common forms of ascriptions are stereotypes of other groups. CIT scholars argued that identity

261Cultural Identity Theory

construction is part reaction to past ascriptions and part ongoing and dynamic avowal of identity claims, and therefore both avowed and ascribed cultural identities are important. In interviews with South Africans in the early 1990s, Collier found that there was often a difference in described quali- ties of avowed cultural identities by insiders and the qualities ascribed to that group by outsiders. She argued that this mismatch could be a factor in con- tinuing or intensifying conflict, but that the conse- quences depended on the status positioning of group members.

CIT scholars such as Collier also proposed that cultural identities are negotiated within a social context and are affected not only by historical events and political conditions but also by who is present and the situation or site of interaction or public discourse. For example, Collier, Hecht, and Ribeau defined African American ethnic identity as a “problematic event” that is historically and politically situated; they pointed to insider-avowed and outsider-ascribed descriptions of ethnic identi- ties in order to provide a view of the communica- tion through which African American ethnic identities are negotiated.

The intensity with which particular cultural identities are avowed and ascribed was described in CIT as differing depending on context, situa- tion, topic, and relationship. Intensity of avowal and ascription was also linked with the salience, or prominence, of cultural identity, as born out in research by Collier related to South African racial, ethnic, and gendered identities. Cultural identities also have been shown to change in significant ways. Othering (placing one group as other than one’s own) in the form of racism against Blacks by Whites has endured over the years and appears even in certain color-blind forms, according to research on interracial marriages in the United States conducted by Jennifer Thompson and Mary Jane Collier.

Along with other theorists, CIT scholars noted that cultural identities become evident through social comparison. On other words, speakers com- pare the status position of their own groups to those of other groups. For instance, when South African Afrikaners described their views about the social and economic future of the country in the early 1990s, they did so by using positive self-references for Whites and negative descriptions for Blacks.

Critical and Interpretive Cultural Identity Negotiation Theory

Critiques of research guided by CIT emerged in the late 1990s. Critical scholars called for researchers to recognize the influence of ascriptions and repre- sentations found in public texts and the role of structures such as institutional policies and ideolo- gies on identity politics and negotiation. To respond, Collier broadened her work through integrating critical and interpretive perspectives. Stressing the role of contextual negotiation of multiple identities and relationships, CIT evolved into cultural iden- tity negotiation theory (CINT). Collier’s more recent work in CINT emphasizes researcher reflex- ivity, or scholars’ reflections on their impact on the work they do as well as the way in which that work influences them. CINT work from early 2000 for- ward calls for attention to the material and social consequences of cultural identity negotiation and increasingly reflects attention to concerns with social equality and justice.

CINT research incorporates attention to forms of discourse such as ascriptions that subjugate cer- tain groups of people as a type of racism, including the discourse that appears in both overt and less visible ways. These types of subjugating discourse are sometimes found in interviews with U.S. court- room personnel, who pride themselves on being “objective.” It has also been found in comments from wives who identify as White in interracial marriages in the United States. As well, views of “others” have been shown to emerge in contradic- tory ways. CINT research shows how political histories and government institutional actions are described by representatives of marginalized and privileged groups, such as those identified as Palestinian and Israeli in a peace-building pro- gram. Further, research methods such as focus group, interviews, and analysis of public discourse can involve the reproduction of Whiteness and class privilege and thereby reinforce and extend the status and resources of particular groups. Reflexively, then, scholars and practitioners can uncover their own systems of oppression as well as identify what can be changed.

To make a new, less oppressive move in CINT research, interpretation and coding procedures often involve multiple coders in dialogue with one another working with transcriptions from videotapes and

262 Cultural Indicators

audiotapes. CINT works to build relevant bodies of knowledge about lived experiences and provides data to inform research, add relevance to instruc- tion, and potentially transform oppressive struc- tures, institutions, and relationships.

Mary Jane Collier

See also Contextual Theory of Interethnic Communication; Critical Ethnography; Critical Race Theory; Critical Theory; Cultural Contracts Theory; Culture and Communication; Identity Theories; Whiteness Theory

Further Readings

Collier, M. J. (1998). Research on cultural identity: Reconciling post-colonial and interpretive approaches. In D. Tanno (Ed.), Cultural identity and intercultural communication. International and intercultural communication annual: Vol. 21 (pp. 122–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collier, M. J. (2005). Enacting and contesting privilege: Cultural identifications in South African focus group discourses. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 295–318.

Collier, M. J. (2005). Theorizing cultural identifications: Critical updates and continuing evolution. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication. (pp. 235–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, M., & Collier, M. J. (2005). Cultural ascriptions displayed by restraining order court representatives: Implicating patriarchy and cultural dominance. Women’s Studies in Communication, 28, 258–289.

Thompson, J., & Collier, M. J. (2006). Toward contingent understandings of intersecting identifications among selected U.S. interracial couples: Integrating interpretive and critical views. Communication Quarterly, 54, 487–506.

CULTURAL INDICATORS

Cultural indicators (CI), in communication the- ory, refers to several different concepts and enti- ties. Most commonly, it refers to the research program begun by George Gerbner at the Annenberg School for Communication in the 1960s. The purpose of this research program was to establish a method to document and measure

cultural phenomena in a way that would comple- ment existing social and economic indicators. Gerbner believed that culture, in its broadest forms and manifestations, would give important evidence about the direction that a society was taking. Working from this viewpoint, he sought to establish measures of culture that could com- plement existing economic indicators (such as gross domestic product) or social indicators (such as the crime rate).

Gerbner began his career in communication theory by working on a general model of commu- nication, but his contributions in CI and related areas of inquiry were much more lasting. Gerbner began articulating the need for cultural indicators as early as 1969, though even his earlier research was setting the stage for assessing the importance of cultural products in society. In 1973, Gerbner put forth a formulation for a CI research para- digm, which became so well known that it could eventually be capitalized; we now use Cultural Indicators to refer to the long-term research proj- ect led by Gerbner, often in collaboration with colleagues Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli.

Gerbner put forth three prongs for a CI research paradigm: institutional process analysis, message system analysis, and cultivation. Institutional process involved the study of the structures of media industries that controlled the mass production of messages. Such a study would involve detailed examination of various roles in media production, focusing on power roles, types of leverage exerted, and typical functions per- formed within the media. Such studies would serve to indicate the cultural, social, political, and economic bases and purposes for the production of media messages.

Message system analysis focused on the system- atic analysis of media content, specifically with an eye toward determining not only what was being portrayed, but how messages were related to the needs, desires, and interests of those producing the messages. Gerbner was building on his own prior interest in content analysis, but also connecting such study to a more overarching view that mes- sages were not just the random output of a pur- poseless machine, but a product of a system serving specific social, economic, and political needs and functions.

263Cultural Indicators

Cultivation was the attempt to connect messages with their potential impact. Although Gerbner eschewed then-traditional notions of media effects, he felt that it would be possible to see to what extent consumers of media messages had absorbed the lessons and morals embedded within those mes- sages. Thus, cultivation focused mostly on the rela- tionships between consumption of messages and the extent to which consumers held worldviews consistent with those messages. This was something of a departure from the then-common method of examining media effects, which often focused on simplistic stimulus–response models of media effects tested under laboratory conditions. Rather, Gerbner was interested in the extent to which consumers of media messages would absorb, retain, and hold beliefs consistent with those found in media mes- sages. Thus, CI research most often combined con- tent analyses of media messages with survey data on the beliefs of heavier consumers of those media. The extent to which heavier users of those media held beliefs consistent with media messages was seen as the extent to which they had been “culti- vated” to hold those beliefs.

While Gerbner’s research program could have been applied to any aspect of the message system, it became almost synonomous with the media effects of television. During the time in which Gerbner began the CI project, television was far and away the dominant medium. The three major networks dominated the distribution of entertain- ment and news messages, eclipsing other media such as radio, newspapers, and films. Gerbner argued that corporate control of television meant that the goals of political and economic elites would find their way into television’s messages and that heavy viewers of television would inevita- bly absorb the conceptions and morals found in those stories. While the institutional analysis por- tion of the research program was not completely abandoned, CI research became most associated with research on the nature of television’s stories and its impacts.

The issue on which CI research came to the forefront was that of televised violence. As early as 1967, Gerbner began collecting content data on television as part of what would become the ongo- ing CI research program. These data focused on a variety of issues, such as the roles of men and women and occupational roles on television and

portrayals of minorities. Also included were data on violence. Trained coders would examine pro- grams for the number of violent acts, describing in detail not just the act itself, but also who commit- ted it and its victim. Eventually, Gerbner and col- leaugues developed a Violence Index, which has become one of the better known products of the project. Data using this method have been col- lected essentially continuously since 1967.

The index itself was a composite of the percent- age of programs (usually either prime-time pro- grams or children’s programs) with violence, the rate of violent acts per program, the rate of violent acts per hour, the percentage of characters involved in violence, and the percentage of characters involved in killing. The numbers resulting from this anaysis were found to range from about 115 to 185, usually averaging about 160. Building from this start, Gerbner and his colleagues went on to produce Violence Profiles, which would track the ups and downs of violence in any given year.

In 1976, Gerbner and Larry Gross published Living With Television, which tracked violence levels from 1967 to 1975. Across the years sam- pled, violence did not change much, though it was higher in childrens’ programming, declining in the then-popular family viewing hour, and increasing during the late evening period. Mostly, since then, CI research has found that violence levels do not vary much. While there may be ups and downs in particular years—due either to change in program- ming fashion or perhaps during periods when politicians are paying more attention—in general, television has remained fairly violent. This particu- lar measure is one of the continuing and most last- ing contributions of CI research.

The measure was and still is controversial. Some argued that the definition of violence used was too liberal. Critics argued that “cartoon” or “slapstick” violence should not really count. Gerbner retorted that “happy violence” could be as pernicious or more so than “sinister” or obvious violence. Later studies of television violence, some commissioned by the industry, have sought to refine or revise the conceptions introduced by Gerbner. Nevertheless, the Violence Profiles were the first to set the critical debate on the levels of violence on television on some firm scientific footing.

While the issue of violence took much of the attention, the CI project has also collected much

264 Cultural Indicators

data on other issues. CI researchers noted the per- sistent underrepresentation of women and minori- ties in television’s early years. Men often outnumbered women by 2 or 3 to 1. Blacks, gays, and other minorities were also underrepresented. In general, the CI project began by concerning itself with a very wide array of issues and portray- als on television; this has continued to this day, as other researchers have taken up the research tactics first promulgated by Gerbner and his colleagues.

With respect to cultivation, Gerbner and Gross found that heavier viewers of television were more likely to see the world as a violent place and to be less trusting of others. This phenomenon came to be known as the mean world syndrome. This was a fairly marked turn from the traditional research focusing on whether viewers imitated television violence. While Gerbner never denied that televised violence could have some role in promoting real social violence, he was more interested in what the viewer would learn about violence. While many murders are committed on television, few people imitate them. But the early cultivation findings showed that people did derive impressions of soci- ety from the scenes of violence they saw on televi- sion. For Gerbner, ultimately, this was a question dealing with social control. Violence on television was not just “for fun”; it also taught lessons about who could and did commit violence and who would be the victims of it. The idea that such vio- lence might convince people to support stronger legislation on crime was not far removed from Gerbner’s original conception that the study of communication should be seen as basic cultural inquiry. Thus, violence, while it may have enter- tained, was also there to help sell products, meeting the commercial needs of the medium. Moreover, it helped to establish perceptions of what was wrong in society, and who could or should control it.

CI research has spawned literally hundreds of studies, both by the original research team and oth- ers who have continued, extended, and even criti- cized the paradigm. Almost always it has focused on television. Even as the television medium has fractured and splintered, researchers are still find- ing evidence of cultivation on a variety of issues. Researchers are finding, for example, that televi- sion interacts with culture in complex ways. Television by no means controls the direction of

society. As minorities and women, for instance, have made strides through civil rights activism, television programs slowly came to recognize these achievments and embody them in their programs. The fact that CI researchers are still collecting data, and have been doing so since the late 1960s, is now allowing scholars to pursue questions about media and social change that have been impossible to address until recently.

In the cultivation arena, research continues to proliferate. Despite heavy criticism early on, stud- ies continue to accumulate that show that there is a fundamental relationship between what people see in the “television world” and what they believe about the “real world.” Researchers have even begun to establish a cognitive basis for cultivation, which shows that heavy viewers of television are more likely to draw on memories and cognitions from their television experience when answering questions about their real-world preceptions or experience.

CI can also refer to statistics gathered by coun- tries or international institutions about cultural activities. Data on phenomena such as media pen- etration rates and production of cultural artifacts such as books, films, and television programs are normally collected for many countries. As such, they often represent economic indicators of cul- tural activity. Such data were often used to argue that powerful and wealthy Western countries, espe- cially the United States, were dominating poorer countries culturally, dumping cultural products on markets that could not afford to produce their own. This argument for media imperialism was a subspecies of the argument for neocolonialism: Powerful countries no longer relied on direct mili- tary and political control to extract resources from client states. Communication technology permitted powerful states to maintain hegemonic relations through the domination of culture. Such arguments have diminished, especially as many formerly media-dependent countries have developed their own local media systems. However, the production and flow of culture across borders continues to be of interest, especially as globalization has turned the production and reception of messages into an international enterprise with ramifications and effects that are not yet well understood.

Finally, in 1994, William Bennett published The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, which he

265Cultural Performance Theory

updated and revised in 1999. He was secretary of education under Ronald Reagan. The book is actu- ally a compendium of a variety of economic, social, and cultural statistics. Bennett treats culture in a macro sense; all phenomena, whether eco- nomic, social, or political, tell us something about culture. However, the book has relatively little to offer to communication theorists; most of its data on communication phenomena are available from primary sources. Also, note that the title is some- what misleading: no single index is offered.

James Shanahan

See also Americanization of Media; Cultivation Theory; Media and Mass Communication Theories; Media Effects Theories; Neocolonialism

Further Readings

Bennett, W. (1999). The index of leading cultural indicators. New York: Broadway.

Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In G. Gerbner, L. Gross, & W. H. Melody (Eds.), Communications technology and social policy (pp. 555–573). New York: Wiley.

Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173–199.

Morgan, M. (Ed.). (2002). Against the mainstream: Selected writings of George Gerbner. New York: Peter Lang.

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. London: Cambridge University Press.

Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (Eds.). (1990). Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CULTURAL PERFORMANCE THEORY

Cultural performance theory offers an approach for understanding culture within the activity of everyday life. It serves as a means to conceptualize culture by placing culture at the center of hege- monic, or dominating, messages and revealing the hierarchical structure of society through lived experience. Performance is foundational to the study of human communication. Performance has

no singular definition, nor is it situated in any singular discipline of study. Performance offers value and insight to theater studies and to social sciences, and it can be viewed through the lens of cultural and critical studies. Performance theory views humans as Homo narrans, or creatures who communicate through stories as a way of crafting their social world and making meaning of it.

Performance implies an act of doing, practice, and theatricality, while simultaneously encompass- ing both the subject of research and the method of doing research. Created from perspectives on human behavior, culture, and ritual, cultural per- formance theory explores the relationship between the foundations of human experience: community, culture, and performance. It also serves as a chal- lenge to traditional theory by bringing together differing domains of knowledge—the objective, scientific, and observable—with the embodied, practical, and everyday. Cultural performance theory radicalizes, or identifies as the root issue, the binary opposition between theory and practice by providing a model of communicative practice in which culture and performance are inextricably joined and integral to the communal experience of everyday life.

The term cultural performance refers to discrete events, or cultural performances that can be observed and understood in any cultural structure. These events include, for example, traditional the- ater and dance, concerts, recitations, religious fes- tivals, weddings, and funerals, all of which possess certain characteristics: limited time span, a begin- ning and an end, a set of performers, an audience, a place and occasion, and an organized program of activity. This approach to cultural performances would later influence anthropological and theatri- cal theory in the 1970s and give rise to the study of folklore from the perspective of culture and performance.

The disciplines involved in cultural performance theory extend broadly. Erving Goffman, a sociolo- gist, explored the social construction of the self in everyday life. Theater scholar Richard Schechner offered the study of social drama and performance as a lens to examine human communication. Anthropologists Victor Turner and Dwight Conquergood employed performance as a means of interpreting cultures and understanding historical, social, and cultural processes—from ritualistic

266 Cultural Performance Theory

modes of expression to ethnographic performance. Communication scholars extend culture to include knowledge formation and culture as a force for intercultural exchange, understanding, and equal- ity. The major tenets of cultural performance the- ory are illuminated in four features specific to culture: process, play, poetics, and power.

Culture as Process

Culture as process assumes that human communi- cation in and through performance is active; all that makes us human is ever-changing, ongoing, and not static. Culture is the sum total of all that we are; a way of life; a blueprint for maintaining traditions; how we celebrate occasions, make memories, ritu- alize events, and understand the ordinariness of everyday life in our families and communities. Culture also provides the possibility for creating and discovering new ways of crafting and negotiat- ing meaning of the world. Culture is embedded in human communication and is an aspect of all humans. Human behavior is performative when the act is telling a story, creating reality, critiquing soci- ety, or remembering history through oral communi- cation, the primacy of the spoken word. A theory of cultural performance illuminates how humans par- ticipate in political and cultural aspects of everyday life in creative and expressive ways. For example, oral history performance creates opportunities to understand how culture, identity, and discourse are situated within a historical context of the times. For Africans living in America, for example, various forms of ritual served as a way to articulate the ways in which cultural differences are created between cultures, while illuminating meanings that are contested, as well as the tensions, the complexi- ties, and the commonalities of human existence and meaning making within the context of social interaction.

Performance encompasses a wide range of human activity and is embedded in all human com- munication while providing a framework for rethinking the body, or self, in ways that critically assess subjectivity and identity, negotiate structures of power and resistance to domination, and chal- lenge predominant ideologies of sexuality, class, gender, race, and ethnicity. Performance is a human act that sees culture as a way of knowing and of discovering new ways of experiencing and making

meaning of the world. Cultural performance, then, becomes an active, engaging, symbiotic exchange in which culture is transacted through perfor- mance—a process of throwing off and pulling in cultural forms centered in conflict and dynamic to the total sensual experience of a culture.

Culture as Play

The idea of culture as play illuminates the ways in which humans craft meaning of the world in and through the performative experience of play. Play is a specific, special, and significant form of human activity. This aspect of cultural performance aims to analyze the cultural functions of play that pro- vide a deepening communal experience of norms and values subscribed by the culture. The relation- ship between culture and play is viewed as a repre- sentation of culturally constructed and articulated forms of playful activity such as tournaments, exhibitions, pageants, and contests, including play- ful activities of children and animals. Play is a voluntary act freely selected and capable of sus- pension at any time. Play is socially associated with “free time,” nonworking, and leisure; it pro- motes social group cohesion within culture. Scholars of play theory reject notions that play must serve some purpose. Rather, they construct theory around performance that examines what play is and what it means to the player. Other per- spectives interested in culture as play note the reflexivity and creativity of the self in play and embrace a communications-based approach to the performance of play.

Culture as Poetics

Culture as poetics elucidates the social and sym- bolic constructions of culture. It emphasizes the ordinariness of everyday life. Such constructions include rites of passage, social rituals, and those social performances that instantiate and reconsti- tute values and norms of the culture. Rites of pas- sage are cultural instances of performance that explain the ways in which people move from one point in time to another on their journey of life. Humans engage in life crises and enact ceremonies, such as rites of passage, in order to offer safe travel from one instance in life to another. Other catego- ries of cultural performance include ceremonies

267Cultural Performance Theory

with strangers, pregnancy and childbirth rites, ini- tiation rites, betrothal and marriage rites, and separation or funeral rites.

Research on rites of passage was further advanced by exploring the role of ritual in everyday life. The traditional and largely descriptive approach to the study of humans advanced to the point of viewing culture as performance, which revolutionized and ushered in a new way of studying human poetics, communication, and behavior. In the area of per- formance studies, concepts such as liminality (the threshold of “betweenness”), communitas (group intimacy), and social drama (cultural conventions) moved beyond description of cultural performance and its constitutive elements to posit the structures and functions of performances as both reflective and reflexive. As reflective, cultural performances have sensory codes, which are meaningful messages about a material world picked up at once by all the senses. A vision of the world through the lens of cultural performance reflects the ongoing social processes, claiming what is important, what is valued, and how society functions. The reflexive function relates to the ways in which cultural performances can lead to change. Cultural performances provide moments to enact, comment, critique, and evaluate the norms and values of a culture. Performance reflexivity is engaged when a sociocultural group turns, bends, reflects back on itself, on the relations, actions, sym- bols, meanings, codes, roles, statuses, social struc- tures, ethical and legal rules, and other components that make up the members’ public selves.

Conquergood underscores the importance of performance as a means toward intercultural understanding; privileging the stories, lived experi- ences, and everyday constructed performances of ordinary people. He views cultural performance theory as a model of intellectual inquiry and a way for understanding the interrelationship among cul- tures. Guillermo Gomez-Pena reminds us that cul- ture embraces the ordinariness of life by linking us together as humans in expressive, creative, and dialogic ways. Thus, through means of dialogue, we learn the ways of others, their ideas manifested in language, history, art, literature, and politics.

Culture as Power

Culture as power is a perspective that shows how performance can reveal the state of displaced

persons moving between cultures. From this view, cultural performance theory becomes a dynamic means for critiquing culture and a way to articu- late the struggle of the lived experience of colo- nized and oppressed peoples. The theory provides a framework for analyzing what Turner calls the sensory codes of a culture. Such codes can range from food performances to political campaigns to cultural expressions of the body and its identity. Culture as power offers performance the inroad to reflect the dynamics of cultural processes and claims about which stories are important, who gets to tell those stories, how we shape the social can- vas of cultural transformation, what is valued in a culture, and how we participate in creating a dif- ferent vision for the future. Culture as power deconstructs the notions of identity by examining how humans negotiate, navigate, and transform systems of domination and control and explores the process by which self and social identity are crafted. Power is performed within the cultural context of the other and illuminates the dynamics of domination. By other is meant those in society marginalized due to sexuality, race, gender, socio- economic status, or ethnicity.

The notion of the other reveals dynamics between the marginalized and the privileged. As a symbolic act of resistance, subversive performances are cultural expressions that disrupt and transgress customary boundaries in a nuanced way. For example, performance artists of color in the United States draw on the communal aspects of indige- nous ancestral people to reclaim tradition, political struggle, and self-empowerment. These perfor- mances place culture at the center, show how the manifestations of being on the margins of society occur at the edge of survival, and transform exis- tence in a way that can facilitate change. For example, Dwight Conquergood’s ethnographic fieldwork with refugees and migrants in Thailand, the Gaza Strip, and inner-city Chicago gangs points to the ways in which cultural performance theory is a lens for seeing how people construct their identities in the face of struggle, liberation, and ultimately change through persuasive means of telling their stories.

Dominant cultural performances have the privi- lege of living out loud, being explicit, speaking directly without fear of retribution, while subordi- nate voices perform counterintuitively in ways that

268 Cultural Studies

are masked, covered, and embedded ways of exis- tence. Mikhail Bakhtin recognizes the value of culture and living on the margins of society, sug- gesting that the most intense life of a culture occurs at its boundaries. Cultural performance theory, then, reveals the underbelly of culture as the expression of power and dominance. However, a performance paradigm also privileges the dynamic, precarious, and embodied experience grounded in a historical process and reveals how marginal voices resist domination through performance: for example, Myron Beasley’s critique on ritual perfor- mances of same-gender-loving men as transgressive and transformative; Bryant Keith Alexander’s read- ing on performing Black masculine identity; or Olga Davis’s illumination of the performative act of survival of 20th-century race riots through the lens of cultural memory. Each speaks to the trans- formational quality of culture performances with the objective of challenging systems of power and control.

Olga Idriss Davis

See also Cultural Studies; Culture and Communication; Narrative and Narratology; Performance Ethnography; Performance Theories; Performative Writing; Stories and Storytelling

Further Readings

Alexander, B. (2004). Passing, cultural performance, and individual agency: Performative reflections on Black masculine identity. Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies, 4, 377–404.

Beasley, M. (2008). Popica/popcorn: Resistance and ritual performance. Performance Research, 12(4), 167–172.

Beasley, M. (2008). Tribute to the ancestors: Ritual performance and same-gender-loving men of African descent. Text and Performance Quarterly, 28, 416–440.

Bell, E. (2008). Theories of performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, M. (1996). Performance: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.

Conquergood, D. (1989). Poetics, play, process, and power: The performative turn in anthropology. Text and Performance Quarterly, 1, 82–95.

Davis, O. I. (2008). Locating Tulsa in the souls of Black women folk: Performing memory as survival. Performance Research, 12, 124–136.

Fine, E. C., & Speer, J. H. (Eds.). (1992). Performance, culture, and identity. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Gomez-Pena, G. (1994). The multicultural paradigm: An open letter to the national arts community. In D. Taylor & J. Villegas (Eds.), Negotiating performance: Gender, sexuality, and theatricality in Latin/o America (pp. 17–29). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Huizinga, J. (1938/1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon.

Madison, D. S., & Hamera, J. (Eds.). (2006). The Sage handbook of performance studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pelias, R. J., & VanOosting, J. (1987). A paradigm for performance studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 219–231.

Schechner, R. (1993). The future of ritual: Writing on culture and performance. New York: Routledge.

Singer, M. (1972). When a great tradition modernizes: An anthropological approach to Indian civilization. New York: Praeger.

Striff, E. (2003). Readers in cultural criticism: Performance studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thiong’o, N. (1998). Penpoints, gunpoints, and dreams: The performance of literature and power in post- colonial Africa. New York: Oxford University Press.

Turner, V. (1988). The anthropology of performance. New York: PAJ.

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CULTURAL STUDIES

Cultural studies can be loosely defined as an academic field of study that crosses disciplinary boundaries such as political economy, literary studies, cultural anthropology, philosophy, American studies, gender studies, film studies, and communication studies. Early cultural studies, which emerged from the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) in Great Britain, generally utilized Marxist and structural- ist perspectives to investigate the complex rela- tionships between political economy and culture. Particularly, cultural studies explored the mun- dane and the “popular” as opposed to what might be called high culture.

269Cultural Studies

Contemporarily, cultural studies has fractured into numerous strands of thought that do not share theoretical or methodological unity, although the emphasis on ordinary and popular culture remains central. Communication, which was one of the first disciplines to offer cultural studies legitimacy in the United States, has most often seen a cultural studies influence in assessments of articulations of power and knowledge within popular media texts. Understanding the importance of cultural studies requires an exploration of its creation as an aca- demic field of study, a look at the central issues for nearly all cultural studies scholars, a brief discus- sion of its relevance in the field of communication, and a summary of persistent criticisms.

Creation of Cultural Studies

The emergence of British cultural studies, in connec- tion with the CCCS, can be traced to post–World War II Great Britain. A number of cultural and social changes faced Great Britain during this time period, including its decline as a world superpower, the development and proliferation of mass media, and the loss of “imperial” identity and homogeneity with an influx of new populations, many of whom were formerly colonized peoples. Moreover, with the expansion of educational opportunities in Great Britain, students who once would have had no access to higher education were now afforded schol- arships so they could attend school. These “scholar- ship” students eventually became intellectuals who did not espouse the same perspectives or values of the middle and upper class who comprised much of the intellectual class. The traditional intellectual class contained many of those who privileged the high arts and condemned the “popular” ones. Thus, a collection of working class intellectuals, including Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams, two of those credited with the creation of cultural studies, began emphasizing the importance of popular cul- ture. Additionally, several individuals involved in the teaching profession, including Stuart Hall, another founder of contemporary cultural studies, began noticing a disconnect between themselves and their knowledge and the cultural communities of their students. A desire to narrow this gap also led to early explorations of popular culture.

Hoggart, Williams, and others, such as E. P. Thompson, set many of the modern foundations

for cultural studies. Stuart Hall’s theories and writ- ings perhaps have left the longest lasting impres- sion, especially on U.S. audiences. Hall took over for Hoggart as director of the CCCS in 1969. Under Hall’s leadership, the CCCS shifted its focus from “everyday” cultures to an emphasis on the mass media and the ideological functions and effects of the media. Hall also centered his approach to cultural studies on dynamics of race and empire, an influence that remains strong today. Hall left the directorship of the CCCS in 1979 to become a professor of sociology at the Open University, and it was also during this time that other centers and university departments began to more seriously aid in constructing the field of cultural studies. The Open University, with the help of Hall, became central in offering innovative tools for cultural studies. Additionally, numerous journals and working groups produced a vibrant body of cul- tural studies literature.

In the mid- to late 1980s, centers and depart- ments in the United States began to produce a plethora of cultural studies research projects. Several collections of scholarly writing emerged from these collaborations, including Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg’s edited collection, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, and Grossberg, Nelson, and Paul Treichler’s collection, Cultural Studies. Additionally, in 1987, the jour- nal Cultural Studies launched its inaugural issue in the United States, featuring an internationally acclaimed editorial board. Today, numerous cul- tural studies journals, anthologies, and academic conferences as well as departments, programs, and centers have been created around the world.

Key Issues in Cultural Studies

In spite of the growth of the field of cultural stud- ies, its increasing legitimacy within the academy, and the substantial number of scholars who iden- tify with it, cultural studies has maintained its refusal of disciplinary and methodological purity. Nevertheless, a number of key issues serve a central function to many cultural studies scholars. Foremost in this arena is the term culture, which has numer- ous definitions, including Raymond Williams’s famous definition of culture as a “way of life.” Others, such as Grossberg, contend that the culture of cultural studies is always a contextual and

270 Cultural Studies

ambiguous space. No singular definition will do; thus reading culture in relation to the following collection of concepts is an imperative of cultural studies.

Language and Signification

The relationship between language and culture is hotly contested, but for most cultural studies scholars, language and processes of signification provide the only access we have to understanding culture. Because meaning is paramount to any definition of culture, the processes of meaning creation must remain in focus. Meaning is con- structed, and the site of its construction is lan- guage. Cultural studies scholars most typically follow the tradition of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who argued that meaning is arbitrary and that no necessary relationship exists between an object and the word that represents it. Investigating the meaning of signs, the arbitrary relationship between the signifier (word) and the signified (object), provides a way to understand culturally specific modes of meaning making.

Language is one site to interrogate this relation- ship; signifying processes, more broadly speaking, are another. Images, film, and various nonlinguis- tic signs can be analyzed as processes of significa- tion that reinforce particular cultural myths, or social meanings that attach themselves to particu- lar signs. For example, an advertisement or photo- graph may contain several signifiers that attach to multiple signifieds, depending on the cultural con- text. An image of Barack Obama after winning the U.S. presidency in 2008 offers an example. The signifiers in the image might include Obama’s smile, his suit and tie, his maleness, and his brown skin. The signifieds, however, could include a shift in the United States’ history of racism, a young and attractive president who suggests a change in pol- icy course, or a continuation of the masculine- dominated political system. Any of these meanings are possible, and by understanding these processes of signification, cultural studies scholars can better understand cultural stagnation and change.

Text and Audience

The exploration of signs usually works by fea- turing the cultural artifact in question as a text. In

cultural studies, a text can refer to a written text, but it is more often used to refer to any artifact that requires reading or interpretation. Textual analysis remains the primary methodological approach in cultural studies. Because of the empha- sis on media, cultural studies scholars are inter- ested in both the analysis of media as polysemic texts that can be read in multiple ways and in how audiences make use of those texts in culturally and historically specific contexts. Drawing on post- structuralism and postmodern theories, cultural studies assumes that no text has an intended or singular meaning. Texts interact with audiences in different contexts to create different meanings. For instance, a song written by a U.S. American artist has very different meanings for audiences at a club in New York City, a boutique in Paris, or a shop- ping mall in Tokyo. Hall’s notions of encoding and decoding, or the interaction between producer and audience to create meaning, have proved especially helpful in understanding these processes.

Ideology and Hegemony

Texts and audiences within any context are not innocent. Because cultural studies research typi- cally produces and adds to critical theory, theoriz- ing ideology and hegemony are key enterprises for cultural studies scholars. Generally following Marxist tradition, a key question is, how do mass media uphold and reinforce the ideology of the dominant class? Related to this question is the issue of discourse, or the web of cultural meanings that congeal on a particular topic or idea, and how some discourses get naturalized to seem as if they are the only one. Ideology is a difficult concept, and cultural studies scholars early on followed the theorization of Louis Althusser, who offered a deterministic perspective on the discursive and material functioning of ideology. Althusser’s the- ory of ideology promoted a perspective that essen- tially said ideology produces culture, and people have little agency to challenge it.

Cultural studies scholars mitigate Althusser’s deterministic conceptualization of ideology by turning toward Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hege- mony. Rather than depicting ideology as all- encompassing, he argues that dominant ideologies and domination are rarely instituted by force or coercion; rather, people consent to their own

271Cultural Studies

domination. Consent is achieved when the domi- nant group acknowledges oppositional positions and viewpoints enough so those who are disem- powered feel that their interests are taken into consideration. Though little actual change may happen, the accommodations the dominant group offers provide enough recompense to keep the marginalized complacent. Thus hegemony affords the possibility for people to enact social change since they take part in their own domination. Cultural studies scholars often investigate the functioning of ideology and hegemony, as well as the ruptures in dominant discourses that leave pos- sibility for agency and revolution.

Identity and Subjectivity

Questions of agency remain crucial for cultural studies scholars. Ideology not only functions to produce particular manifestations of culture, but beliefs about the self are also ideological. An assumption that is present in both Althusser and Gramsci is that ideologies are internalized and help constitute people’s sense of who they are in a given cultural space. Because ideologies are found in the language, texts, and signifying practices, what those things mean comes to reside in people. This means that who people understand them- selves to be and how others understand them in terms of factors such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation are not “natural,” but “natu- ralized.” A person’s relationship to a particular text is thus a product of a range of cultural pro- cesses that are heavily infused with specific ideolo- gies about who they are and how they should be.

Methodological Approaches

Investigating the aforementioned concerns proves to be a complicated methodological task. One of the key strengths and most often identified weaknesses of cultural studies is its refusal to adopt a unified methodological approach. On one hand, this refusal leads cultural studies scholars to conduct research that is driven by their research questions. Cultural studies scholars thus utilize an array of methods including, but not limited to, archival research, tex- tual analyses, interviews and ethnographic methods, surveys, content analysis, psychoanalysis, semiotics, and deconstruction. Scholars who have long

critiqued the methodological limitations of those disciplines that demand adherence to a unified or consistent method have championed this plurality. On the other hand, without a coherent method- ological approach, critics have maintained that cul- tural studies will always lack validity.

One of the most well-known examples of a cul- tural studies approach to the study of cultural artifacts is Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. This book, which provides a step-by-step analysis of the culture of the Walkman, identifies the necessity of unpacking the articula- tion of five related cultural processes: representa- tion, consumption, identity, production, and regulation. These processes create a circuit of cul- ture that one must investigate in order to offer a comprehensive look at the function, use, and meanings connected to cultural artifacts. Though many cultural studies projects do not take this particular approach, this case study serves as an exemplar for how to critique the numerous culture industries and their products.

Cultural Studies and Communication

Importantly, the discipline of communication stud- ies was among the first to embrace cultural studies in the United States. Specifically, those who study media and cultural processes have been most inter- ested in the cultural studies project. Lawrence Grossberg has been one of the leaders in bringing cultural studies to communication, having written extensively about cultural studies. His work on topics such as youth culture, conservatism, and popular music has laid the groundwork for an entire body of scholarship connecting communica- tion and cultural studies. Similarly, a number of feminist and queer scholars have done important work that conjoins the two areas of study, includ- ing Raka Shome, Radhika Parameswaran, Katherine Sender, and others. In her work on Princess Diana, for instance, Shome analyzes British media representations of Diana after her death. Shome demonstrates the connections between White femininity and national identity during the crisis. Sender has also created a body of work ana- lyzing the relationships between gender and sexu- ality in the media within a broader context of neoliberalism. Sender’s research highlights repre- sentation in relation to matters of consumption,

272 Cultural Studies

production, regulation, and identity, connecting it strongly with the cultural studies tradition prac- ticed at the Open University. Others such as Toby Miller have intervened in cultural studies practice by insisting on an internationalization of research and a connection with other dimensions of cultural reality such as law, policy, and money. For media analyses to have relevance to public audiences, scholars must push for more complex analyses that lead to radical critique and social transformation.

Criticisms

No field of study that has changed the academic landscape like cultural studies could be without its critics. Cultural studies has taken hits from an array of scholars for both its political agenda and its methodological fluidity. By now it should be clear that cultural studies has no use for conven- tional scholarly expectations of objectivity or neutrality. To the contrary, cultural studies schol- ars are overt in their political commitments, and they often maintain that their critical reflexivity about politics makes their work more honest than that which denies any political investment at all. Not all critics find this premise persuasive. Moreover, some critics hardly consider cultural studies scholarly. Physicist Alan Sokal wrote a parody, which appeared as a hoax, in the cultural studies journal Social Text, of what he described as the “nonsense” of cultural studies scholars writing from a postmodern tradition. In explain- ing his hoax, Sokal argued that the political turn away from analyses of objective realities toward the social construction of reality undermines pos- sibilities for scholarship to affect genuine social change. Sokal’s work created a significant contro- versy within and outside the field both because he fooled the editors and reviewers of a leading cul- tural studies journal and because of the scathing nature of his critique.

The Sokal hoax also points to the methodolog- ical critiques leveled at cultural studies, from those both within and outside the approach. For exam- ple, cultural studies scholars have long squabbled over the relationship between culture and political economy, with some critics arguing that cultural studies has reduced everything to culture, denying the impact of political economy. Additionally, cultural studies scholars have critiqued each other

for using whatever method suits their fancy, rely- ing on a critique of the conditions of knowledge production as a justification for less-than-rigorous methodology. At the same time, because textual analysis remains a primary method, some have suggested that cultural studies research has not advanced beyond the literary criticism generally applied to “high arts.”

Outside cultural studies, the methodological critiques have been no less severe. Some practitio- ners of journalism maintain that the influence of cultural studies corrupts journalistic practice as it emerges from radical theory rather than empirical investigation. Harold Bloom, a Yale literature pro- fessor, argues that cultural studies is destructive to literary studies and an enterprise designed to advance people’s careers rather than engage in serious analysis of literary texts.

Probably one of the biggest critiques of cultural studies remains its profound Eurocentrism. Though the complex phenomenon of globalization has been studied extensively, and postcolonial theory has long impacted the thinking of a number of people in cultural studies, the ethnocentrism of much of the work has stayed firmly intact. Scholars from traditions in Asia and Latin America in par- ticular have suggested that cultural studies remains a very limited enterprise as long as its perspective emerges from only a small collection of powerful regions (Europe, Australia, and the United States). Latin American cultural studies scholars, for example, demonstrate a long-standing and rich tradition of critical writing and research in Central and South America that predates many of these same conversations in Eurocentric cultural studies. Still, very little of that Latin American tradition is regarded in the Eurocentric one. Despite its obvi- ous shortcomings, cultural studies remains a vibrant and constantly changing project that will no doubt continue to influence generations of communication scholars.

Karma R. Chávez

See also Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical Theory; Feminist Communication Theories; Language and Communication; Marxist Theory; Materiality of Discourse; Postcolonial Feminism; Postcolonial Theory; Postmodern Theory; Poststructuralism; Semiotics and Semiology

273Cultural Theories of Health Communication

Further Readings

Abbas, A., & Erni, J. N. (Eds.). (2005). Internationalizing cultural studies: An anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Del Sarto, A., Ríos, A., & Trigo, A. (Eds.). (2004). The Latin American cultural studies reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage.

Erni, J. N., & Chua, S. K. (Eds.). (2005). Asian media studies: Politics of subjectivities. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Grossberg, L. (1993). Cultural studies and/in new worlds. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 1–22.

Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., & Treichler, P. (Eds.). (1992). Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.

Hall, S. (1992). Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79. London: Hutchinson Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.

Hasian, M. A., Jr., & Nakayama, T. K. (1997). The empires strike back: The Sokal controversy and the vilification of cultural studies. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 21(2), 45–55.

Johnson, R., Chambers, D., Raghuram, P., & Tincknell, E. (2004). The practice of cultural studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewis, J. (2008). Cultural studies: The basics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McRobbie, A. (Ed.). (1997). Back to reality? Social experience and cultural studies. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Miller, T. (Ed.). (2001). A companion to cultural studies. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell.

Nelson, C., & Grossberg, L. (Eds.). (1988). Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 14(1/2), 217–252.

Turner, G. (2002). British cultural studies: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

CULTURAL THEORIES OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION According to an Institute of Medicine report published in 2003, the concept of culture has

increasingly become a core component in the devel- opment of health communication theory and appli- cation. The field of health communication has recently seen a growing interest in the concept of culture, with the idea that culturally based theories of health communication should guide effective health communication applications. This emphasis on culture in health communication has been brought about by (a) the increasing diversity within the United States against the backdrop of shifting global migration patterns and (b) the increasing postcolonial criticism of traditionally top-down health communication programs. As a result of this emphasis, the hegemonic, or oppressive, assump- tions underlying mainstream conceptualizations of health and communication about health have been questioned by health communication scholars.

In order to address the concept of culture in health communication, scholars and practitioners have introduced culturally based constructs into existing health communication theories, developed culturally based theories of health communication, and outlined communication processes and strate- gies that take culture into account. This work may broadly be categorized into (a) culturally sensitive and (b) culture-centered approaches.

Whereas the culturally sensitive approach focuses on developing communication materials that are responsive to the characteristics of the cul- ture as identified by expert scholars and communi- cation practitioners, the culture-centered approach relies on developing culture-based processes for listening to cultural members and developing strat- egies for addressing problems articulated by par- ticipants in important health-related discursive spaces, or places and situations in which commu- nication occurs and in which meaning is created. These are situations that traditionally have neglected or erased the voices of various cultural groups. With their diverse roots, the culturally sensitive and culture-centered approaches vary widely in their concepts of culture, in their theorizing of the role of communication in the realm of culture, and in the nature of health communication applications that are developed on the basis of culture.

Culturally Sensitive Health Communication

Culturally sensitive health communication theo- ries aim to develop communication solutions to

274 Cultural Theories of Health Communication

preconfigured health problems in local communi- ties. In these theories, culture is treated as a vari- able that modifies the traditional elements of communication and persuasion. The goal of cul- turally sensitive health communication theories is to utilize the concept of culture to develop more effective and efficient health communication pro- grams among the members of various cultures.

Researchers and providers segment target audi- ences of health communication programs accord- ing to certain cultural variables and subsequently carry out health communication interventions with the idea that culturally relevant communica- tion materials are more effective than materials that are not relevant. This notion of adapting communication materials to the salient character- istics of the culture lies at the heart of culturally sensitive health communication. Communication is thus conceptualized in terms of health mes- sages. For example, Matthew Kreuter and Stephanie McClure offer a comprehensive review of culturally sensitive health communication pro- grams, incorporating elements of culture into the widely used communication–persuasion model developed by William McGuire, which deals with how to induce resistance to messages that may influence people in unwanted ways. In their review, the authors offer a framework for exam- ining the effectiveness of source characteristics, message characteristics, and channel characteris- tics in the context of cultural variables.

The Concept of Culture

Culture is seen as a repository of values, beliefs, and practices that are typically categorized in the realm of certain geographically defined spaces or clearly defined communities. These values, beliefs, and practices are conceptualized as variables that guide the development of culturally appropriate health messages. The emphasis here is on noting the cultural differences within populations with respect to the beliefs and values and their communicative and health practices. Cultural variables are incorpo- rated into existing health communication theories with the idea that these variables would enhance the applicability of the theories in the target popula- tions. Examples of such cultural variables include individualism–collectivism, power distance, uncer- tainty avoidance, and masculinity–femininity.

Culture, therefore, is treated as a static entity that could be measured through instruments and then be utilized for the purpose of guiding health communi- cation applications.

The Role of Communication in Culture

Communication is seen in terms of interven- tions that are directed toward changing certain undesirable characteristics within the culture that are typically associated with poor health outcomes. In the culturally sensitive approach, communica- tion is treated as messages, and the goal is to create the most effective message for the target culture. Based on an individualistic framework, the cultur- ally sensitive approach is directed toward changing the underlying belief structures associated with a proposed health behavior as might be encountered within the realm of individual lifestyles. Therefore, communication in culturally sensitive health com- munication is behavior-change persuasion that is built on the idea that sending out the appropriate culturally situated message will be effective in bringing about behavior change in the target cul- ture. The health problem in the community is pre- determined, and formative research is conducted in order to identify the salient cultural characteris- tics that would guide the culturally sensitive health communication intervention. In the culturally sen- sitive approach, communication is linear and top- down, and the cultural information obtained from the target audience is utilized in order to develop a more effective health communication program promoting a specific behavior.

For culturally sensitive scholars, the health com- munication intervention is likely to be more effec- tive when it takes into account source, message, and channel characteristics that are appropriate for the predefined characteristics of the culture. Therefore, the emphasis in culturally sensitive health communication is on identifying those cul- tural variables that would be informative in the selection of sources, message content, and the appropriate channels for targeting the cultural members. Culturally relevant health communica- tion strategies might range from the selection of similar sources, to the selection of surface-level message characteristics such as color and sound that are aligned with cultural beliefs and values, to the development of messages that are aligned with

275Cultural Theories of Health Communication

the underlying social and cultural dimensions of the target community.

The Nature of Health Communication Applications

Health communication applications in the cul- turally sensitive health communication approach are typically interventions that are directed toward addressing the culturally based barriers that may interfere with the adoption of a recommended behavior. These applications are therefore top- down in their implementation of communication strategies, with communication continuing to flow from the centers of expertise to the cultural com- munities at the peripheries. Health communication applications in the cultural sensitivity approach ultimately work with cultural variables to produce effective messages that are directed toward bring- ing about attitudinal and behavioral changes in the population. Relevant cultural variables are selected in order to guide the strategic selection of channel, source, and message characteristics for the health communication intervention promoting the prede- termined behavior in the community.

Culture-Centered Health Communication

In response to the criticisms articulated by Deborah Lupton and Collins Airhihenbuwa, the culture- centered approach developed in the work of Mohan Dutta critiques the dominant framework of health communication for its West-centric assumptions and opens up the discursive space to include alternative meanings of health. It does this through joining in solidarity with cultural commu- nities that are otherwise erased from the discursive spaces of knowledge. Here cultural participants themselves are agents in seeking out, making sense of, and transforming unhealthy social structures.

The Concept of Culture

Culture is dynamic and is embodied in the locally situated contexts within which cultural members negotiate their meanings of health. Therefore, central to the concept of culture in this approach is the intersection between communica- tion and continually shifting local contexts. Culture is constituted through communicative practices and constitutes the broader framework

within which communication takes place and meanings are shared. The dynamic nature of cul- ture as conceptualized in the culture-centered approach leaves openings for meanings, values, and rituals to be articulated, co-constructed in participatory spaces, and renegotiated through cultural interpretations. Dynamic culture is consti- tuted through participatory communication, mak- ing listening and dia logue two of the central concepts in the culture-centered approach. It is through the communicative act of listening that opportunities are created for the articulation of hitherto unheard problem configurations from the standpoints of cultural members.

The Role of Communication in Culture

Communication in the culture-centered approach lies at the intersection of culture, structure, and agency. Structure refers to the forms of organiza- tion and resources within the social system that provide and/or limit access to the fundamental necessities of health. Examples of structures include hospitals, health service agencies, shelters, work- places, forms of transportation, and food resources that are related to experiences and meanings of health. Agency refers to the capacity of cultural members to define their own problems, articulate their needs, and participate in communicative pro- cesses and practices that seek to address their articulated needs. Communication here is seen as a process through which agency is expressed, as meanings are shared locally, nationally, and glob- ally in order to address the structures that facilitate and constrain the possibilities for health. This approach emphasizes the meanings that are co- constructed by cultural members as they partici- pate in a variety of transformative practices that seek to change unhealthy social structures even as they work with these structures. Therefore, com- munication serves as a process for creating partici- patory spaces for listening to the voices of local communities and for dialoguing with cultural members in order to address the broader structures that impede the possibilities for health. Furthermore, the culture-centered approach offers a deconstruc- tive lens for continually interrogating the hege - monic assumptions of mainstream health com munication programs, as well as an entry point for engaging in dialogue with those communities at

276 Cultural Types Theories

the margins that remain hidden from dominant discursive spaces.

Nature of Health Communication Applications

The health communication applications devel- oped in the culture-centered approach are funda- mentally transformative in nature as they seek to address the social structures that create and sus- tain the unhealthy conditions at the margins of society. Therefore, many of the applications in this approach are directed toward addressing the broader social structures surrounding the health experiences of cultural communities. Examples include projects of community activism, political mobilization, and citizen participation that are typically directed at health policies. In addition, culture-centered health communication applica- tions are based on principles of participation as scholars engage with local communities in order to listen to the voices of community members by cre- ating participatory platforms that voice the stories of local community members.

Conclusion

The cultural sensitivity approach and the culture- centered approach offer largely different under- standings of culture, the relationship between communication and culture, and the role of social structures in the realm of health experiences of individuals, groups, and communities. Whereas the cultural sensitivity approach takes an individu- alistic approach to health problems, with the locus of control being in the realm of individual life- styles, the culture-centered approach seeks to address the social structures underlying health problems. The cultural sensitivity approach responds to culture by taking cultural variables into account in the development of culturally appropriate health interventions, and the culture- centered approach takes culture as an entry point for listening to voices of local communities in par- ticipatory processes that are directed toward addressing unhealthy social structures.

Mohan J. Dutta

See also Cultural Types Theories; Culture and Communication; Health Communication Theories

Further Readings

Airhihenbuwa, C. (1995). Health and culture: Beyond the Western paradigm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dutta, M. (2007). Communicating health: A culture- centered approach. London: Polity Press.

Dutta-Bergman, M. (2004). The unheard voices of Santalis: Communicating about health from the margins of India. Communication Theory, 14, 237–263.

Krueter, M., & McClure, S. M. (2004). The role of culture in health communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 439–455.

Lupton, D. (1994). Toward the development of a critical health communication praxis. Health Communication, 6(1), 55–67.

McGuire, W. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (2nd ed., pp. 43–65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

CULTURAL TYPES THEORIES

Cultural types have assumed great importance in those areas of the communication field related to culture. The phrase cultural types has three pri- mary usages in the social science literature: (1) culture and personality, (2) national character, and (3) high versus low context. This entry dis- cusses these concepts, their origins and relation- ships, and their relevance to scholarship in communication.

Culture and Personality

The academic concept of cultural types first appeared in the early 19th century, likely based on existing ethnocentric cultural prejudices between peoples of newly emerging nation-states. The cul- tural types notion suggested a relationship between upbringing in a culture and the character and per- sonality of its people. Traditional religious con- cepts had been accepted for centuries as explanations of adult behavior, based in part on the idea of karma, the summative moral result of past behav- ior, or the soul, granted to the child by a higher power before birth. The academic study of culture and personality attempted to understand personal- ity development and its relationship to the social environment in which it developed.

277Cultural Types Theories

The emerging fields of anthropology and psy- chology approached the explanation of behavior independently for most of the 19th century until Sigmund Freud’s theories of psychoanalysis pro- vided a potential bridge between them. Charles Darwin’s theories became a strong influence on each of the social sciences, and the newly conceived differences proposed between human cultures were classified by some anthropologists according to their presumed level of development along an evo- lutionary scale, from primitive to civilized. Anthropologists searched for common features of personalities in a given culture that might allow the characterization of peoples by their cultures. Generalizations were sought about each culture, such as national character, modal personality types, and particular personality configurations.

Other anthropologists, led by Franz Boas and his students Edward Sapir and Ruth Benedict, developed a position arguing for the equivalence of humans and their social institutions across cultural groups. By the second decade of the 20th century, Sapir was integrating work from his linguistic studies with concepts relating psychology and psy- chotherapy to cultural anthropology, suggesting that all members of a culture possess related per- sonalities and that these can be subanalyzed into types. This greatly expanded the new culture and personality approach, shifting thinking from the presumed evolution of cultures toward the impor- tance of the individual, arguing that culture assumes the character and form of its members’ personality structure.

Much of this thinking was influenced by Boas’s and Benedict’s work on Native American cultures. Boas defined culture as a collection of individuals with their own institutions and societies, introduc- ing the modern definition of culture, and rejected a hierarchy of cultures. This work patterned culture at an individual level, seeking the source of indi- vidual differences in behavior and the meaning attached to the variations, opening a wider discus- sion between anthropologists and psychologists culminating in the 1920s and 1930s.

During World War II, the Office of Strategic Services employed both Benedict and her student Margaret Mead in a U.S. Army–motivated project to understand the culture of the enemy, particu- larly the Japanese. Conducted by Benedict and designated as a study of national character, the

research was necessarily based on existing written accounts together with interviews of Japanese Americans, and published after the war. The Office of Strategic Services expanded the national charac- ter studies directed by Benedict and Mead as a preemptive attempt to understand different coun- tries and the threats they might pose. Mead’s main work was for the Committee for National Morale, to apply anthropology and psychology to the issue of building American morale.

Benedict’s work compared the national charac- ters of two similar cultures, England and the United States, finding that while Americans taught young women to exercise control over men’s sex- ual urges in dating, young women in England were brought up not to worry about holding this line since young English males were taught to control themselves. These gender norms for male/female interactions were seen as sufficiently different between the countries that the cultures could easily appear different if analyses of variables other than culture and personality were not undertaken. This also implied that gender characteristics were not shaped by biology or genetics but by culture, implying that gender roles might be modified by changing cultural prescriptions and that culture could change personality.

National Character

When the notion of cultural types first appeared, it formed the basis for the concept of national character, particularly in Europe and East Asia. It was employed as the basis for prejudice and dis- crimination against minorities or against opposing nations and their populations, or, correspond- ingly, as the basis for the presumed superiority and right to power of a majority culture. In 19th- century Russia, interpretation of events was closely identified with the concept of the Russian soul, a clearly defined notion of national character that is still in use in some modern Russian institutions. Chinese Communist leaders from Mao Tse-tung to Deng Xiaoping employed cultural types notions, particularly with reference to interactions with Russia, and many Russians still respond to the Russian soul concept.

In the 1950s and 1960s, national character studies were criticized severely as ethnocentric and reductionistic because they evaluated each culture

278 Cultural Types Theories

on the basis of a small number of characteristics that used Western values, reducing cultural and social complexity to simple descriptions. The simi- larity of the national character concept to the Nazi use of Aryan superman notions together with its characterizations of inferior populations led to further discrediting. British social anthropologists led by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown critically examined the entire field of culture and personality studies, referring to them in general as a vague abstraction. He saw the studies as based on Western philosophical and religious assumptions concerning the nature of humanity and suggested that the proposed personality types were not empirically evaluated through a comparison with alternative theories.

While these criticisms were valid, seeking rela- tionships between psychology and culture can produce valuable insights. The culture and person- ality approach continued as cognitive or psycho- logical anthropology with a new emphasis on the individual, recognizing that all humans are basi- cally similar and seeking possible cultural and social effects on personality. Understanding this history is important when considering the work of Edward T. Hall, Geert Hofstede, and others in the study of relationships between cultural contexts and communication.

High-Context and Low-Context Communication

Although several different schemes have been used to distinguish among cultures, the ideal types of high context and low context have been especially important in the communication field. For this rea- son, this entry features this particular distinction in somewhat greater detail than others. High and low context are ideal types referring to the amount of information directly stated in a communication message versus any additional amount needed to understand it. These concepts were introduced by Edward T. Hall in his 1976 book Beyond Culture. In any culture, people require contextual informa- tion beyond the words of a message in order to assign meaning. The context needed is higher in some cultures and messages and lower in others.

In the 1930s, Hall was strongly influenced by the work of Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict and lived with Navajo and Hopi on reservations in

Arizona. By the 1950s he was employed by the U.S. State Department to teach intercultural communi- cation to State Department personnel about to be assigned to foreign posts. Hall’s students expressed little use for anthropological descriptions of the cultural systems of the Hopi in their attempts to understand the culture they would face in their assigned country. Yet Hall found it difficult to describe the specific culture of entry for each of the students going to a dozen or more different cul- tures. To address these problems Hall began his initial work on intercultural communication proper, generalizations about intercultural communication that hold across cultures. Such generalizations are within Kenneth Pike’s etic approach, considering multiple cultures from an outside viewpoint to determine their commonalities. The distinction between high- and low-context cultures formed a portion of Hall’s work in this regard.

High-Context Communication

In a high-context culture, the significance intended by a message is located largely in the situ- ation; the relationships of the communicators; and their beliefs, values, and cultural norm prescrip- tions. Thus context is important in interpreting high-context communication since the amount of information carried in the context is high. High- context cultures usually emphasize politeness, nonverbal communication, and indirect phrasings, rather than frankness and directness, in order to avoid hurt feelings. They emphasize the group over the individual and tend to encourage in-groups and group reliance. Messages in many high- context conversations are ambiguous, with multi- ple possible interpretations that may drift into vagueness, seemingly indefinite in form and impre- cise in thought.

Hall’s high context concept is similar to Ferdinand Tönnies’ concept of Gemeinschaft. Gemeinschaft refers to community or family-type relationships between people with strong personal ties. Gesellschaf is similar to Hall’s low context, emphasizing sec- ondary relationships such as at a job, where the motivation to be together is principally a self-interest in making money, generally with less individual loyalty to the social group. Gemeinschaft and high context are also related to Basil Bernstein’s notion of restricted codes that occur where there are

279Culture and Communication

closely shared identifications, expectations, and assumptions in a subculture that raises “we” above “I.” Geert Hofstede’s 1980 study of IBM employ- ees identified four bipolar dimensions that charac- terize culture. The individualism–collectivism distinction Hofstede describes is related to the above conceptions of Tönnies, Bernstein, and Hall.

The defining feature of high-context communi- cation remains one in which the context of the mes- sage is a greater determinant of its intended meaning than are the words. Thus “kill the umpire” is understood to express great displeasure with the decisions of the official behind home plate if spo- ken by a spectator after a questionable call during a baseball game. It is not intended as a literal call for the death of an individual. This message is highly contextual and would be understood in the same way by almost everyone in the co-culture of baseball fans, despite its lack of concern for the feelings of the umpire being berated, and its directness.

Low-Context Communication

In a low-context culture, the meanings intended by a message are located in the interpretations of its words and their arrangement. These are care- fully selected in an attempt to express those mean- ings clearly and explicitly. Thus, there is low dependence on the surrounding context when interpreting low-context communication. Low- context cultures often place a high value on the individual, encouraging self-reliance. The predom- inant culture of the United States provides an example in which the presumed need is minimal for context surrounding a message in order to understand it.

If a professor states, “The paper is due on Thursday at noon, no exceptions,” the statement means the paper is due on Thursday at noon, no exceptions. Little understanding of the situation or context in which the message exchange occurred, beyond the words of the message itself, is needed in order to assign meaning to the message. Yet even low-context communication requires a degree of consideration of the surrounding context and nonverbals, since the tone of voice of the profes- sor, the situation in which the message occurred, and the past history of the interaction between the

particular participants might create the under- standing that this message was intended as a joke or as a facetious response.

The concepts of high- and low-context commu- nication are best seen as end points on a continuum rather than as either/or positions. They should be understood historically, in the context of difficul- ties with earlier attempts to relate properties of culture to individual behavior.

Thomas M. Steinfatt

See also Culture and Communication; Elaborated and Restricted Codes; Face Negotiation Theory; Intercultural Communication Theories; Linguistic Relativity; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Organizational Culture

Further Readings

Barnouw, V. (1963). Culture and personality. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LeVine, R. A. (1974). Culture, behavior, and personality. Chicago: Aldine.

Sapir, E. (1949). Culture, language, and personality. Berkeley, CA: Language Behavior Research Laboratory.

Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1988). Malinowski, Rivers, Benedict and Others: Essays on culture and personality. History of anthropology series, Vol. 4. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION

The goal of this entry is to broadly outline selected conceptualizations and approaches linking culture and communication in order to demonstrate the range of theoretical assumptions that guide research. The information is designed to enable the reader to understand a few of the contextual factors that have enabled particular approaches to emerge and to appreciate areas of similarity and difference. Readers are encouraged to remember that even scholars who align with similar perspectives may

280 Culture and Communication

have different views of how to approach culture in their work.

Selected Approaches

Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

The Frankfurt School refers to a group of German economists, social theorists, and philoso- phers at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, originally established in 1923. Influenced by Marxism and World War I, they were inter- ested in elucidating the links between economic systems and structures within society, concerned with how capitalism produces and reproduces forms of domination, and ultimately driven by the purpose of emancipation and changing the social order. Their work was oriented toward examining conflict and predominant tensions between work- ing classes and dominant classes. They recognized the abilities of the working classes to challenge and change the resulting social order, and there- fore their work is credited as originating what is now called critical theory. Well-known members of the Frankfurt School include Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Jürgen Habermas.

As the sociopolitical landscape in Germany became dominated by the Nazi movement in the 1930s, several scholars immigrated to the United States and established the Institute for Social Research at Columbia University. They turned their attention from the role of activism and working-class movements to a focus on objective conditions and advocated for the role of reason and intellect in determining and changing the social order. They also began to address mass com- munication and media as structures of oppression in capitalistic societies.

The work of these critical theorists includes views of individuals as agents of change and atten- tion to both discovering societal structures and then changing them through public deliberation. Trained primarily as philosophers, some scholars from the Frankfurt School emphasized intellectual and rational orientations to building knowledge about culture and society in contrast to focusing on popular or widely accessible aspects of culture.

In general among Frankfurt School critical theo- rists, culture is the communicative structure that reflects the social order; culture is revealed in texts

and discourses that are produced by institutions, organizations, and public spokespersons. With regard to ontology (that which is) and praxis (prac- tical action), critical theorists suggest that individu- als have the ability and agency to advocate for change, and this often occurs in public deliberation and debate in public spaces.

Intercultural Communication and Foreign Service Institute

Another significant group of scholars doing work on culture and communication in the United States just after World War II included Edward T. Hall, a cultural anthropologist. The Foreign Services Act had just been passed by the U.S. Congress in 1946 to establish a Foreign Service Institute (FSI) in the Department of State. Hall worked at the FSI with linguists and other academ- ics to prepare U.S. diplomats for their overseas sojourns.

Hall’s work is noteworthy because he brought attention to face-to-face interaction between mem- bers of different cultural groups and also intro- duced the importance of nonverbal forms of communication. He focused on contextually spe- cific interactions and brought more attention to the role of nonverbal cues such as proxemics (use of space), kinesics (body language), paralanguage (tone of voice and vocal cues), and temporality in establishing the meanings of messages. This was a significant expansion of more traditional anthro- pological orientations that focused on one specific cultural group at a time, such as ethnographic descriptions of Hopi Indians, or performed cross- cultural comparisons of communication practices within one cultural group, such as U.S. Americans, with those used by another cultural group, such as Japanese.

Hall argued that culture can be identified when groups use patterned, learned, and analyzable codes of communication. With regard to ontology, his work showcases the idea that culture is com- municatively constructed and that realities experi- enced by humans are culturally patterned. He showed the benefits of microanalysis, studying spe- cific interactions and contextual cues as they affect meanings and behavior. In his training of diplomats for foreign service, he discovered that the diplomats wanted practical and concrete recommendations

281Culture and Communication

about what would be effective conduct in the vari- ous countries where they were to be posted. They were most concerned with learning what behaviors they should use and what behaviors they should avoid in order to be effective communicators. Thus, Hall brought academic and popular attention to intercultural communication effectiveness starting in the 1950s.

The context of the FSI work is therefore impor- tant in understanding the popularity of intercul- tural communication competence research, training programs, courses, and workshops, as well as popular books that offer “tool kits” and prescrip- tions for more effective conduct in particular coun- tries. The work of the FSI laid the foundation for laypeople, corporate managers, international train- ers, educators, and academics to link communica- tion patterns with national, racial, and ethnic groups who live in particular places.

Cultural Studies Orientations

The label of cultural studies originally emerged from an interdisciplinary enterprise at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, in 1964. Scholars in the United States who align with a cultural studies orientation are inter- ested in uncovering ideologies that dominate, along with maintaining a commitment to create emanci- pation and social change. Steeped in the events of previous decades of social and political unrest, some academics began studying how capitalist political systems and the policies and practices of the governments, multinational corpo ra tions, courts, and educational institutions positioned U.S. national culture as primary and acted to privilege some groups and marginalize others.

Scholars aligning with this perspective argue that there is not nor should there be one overarch- ing conceptualization of culture; they focus on relationships between discourse, power, and ide- ologies. Discourse systems refer to what is talked about or expressed, the structure or rules about what can and cannot be said, who may speak, and what is accomplished for whom. Discourses are produced by institutions such as governments, professional groups such as the medical commu- nity, or social groups. According to a key figure among cultural studies scholars, Stuart Hall, cul- ture is a site of struggle because these discourse

systems are contested. In other words, some are found more often and are given more value than others, and there is ongoing negotiation about which discourse systems should be more impor- tant. For example, there are competing discourse systems related to different diseases and the rela- tive stigma of having HIV/AIDS. Talking about HIV/AIDS as an “African” or “gay” disease or as a virus positions those with the disease into differ- ent levels of stigma and status and provides differ- ent levels of access to resources for treatment.

Culture, therefore, is defined as a complex and contested communicative system through which ideologies and status are negotiated. Ideologies are fundamental assumptions about reality that are both institutionally and socially patterned and function to position groups with higher and lower status. For example, consider ideologies related to financial aid for college students, such as the fol- lowing: (a) Financial aid for any group member should be awarded on the basis of individual merit, or (b) financial aid for any group should be awarded on the basis of past histories of discrimi- nation against the group and current levels of underrepresentation in higher status professions. Neither of these ideologies is mutually exclusive and both “compete” for priority in policy discus- sions among college administrators, faculty, and students.

The negotiation of ideologies, and therefore of culture, takes place in part through discourses that include verbal codes and nonverbal images, and products, as well as policies and procedures or organizations and institutions. Also important for cultural studies scholars is to look at what is accomplished by certain ideologies being rein- forced, such as some groups having higher or lower socioeconomic status and social practices that include material conditions of living.

Because these relationships between discourse, ideologies, and power influence public audiences, and because domination and oppression are con- structed in patterns of discourse, in normative practice, and in historical context, most cultural studies scholars turn their attention to mediated and public messages as the forms through which power relations become visible. Scholars addition- ally became interested in intersections of race, eth- nicity, class, and sexuality; they began to examine representations and interpretations of particular

282 Culture and Communication

groups and how these were positioned in relation- ship to one another.

There was a move among some of these aca- demics to question dominant paradigms, as well as objective, rational, and scientific determinism. Questions about what scaled measurements actu- ally measure, who is conducting social-scientific research about racial and ethnic groups, and con- sequences of naming some groups as minority and generalizing about ethnic group communication styles were raised. Many cultural studies scholars argued for seeking alternative views, advocated for the value of culturally relative knowledge, and viewed closure and objective certainty as dubious. There were calls to recognize more fully the exis- tence of multiple histories and truths and to acknowledge the role of structures and institu- tions, hence macro contexts, in producing what is believed, as well as what is considered to be real and valued.

With regard to both axiology (values) and praxis (practical action), cultural studies scholars advocate a reformist orientation and methods that both uncover domination as well as point to social practices that can be changed. What is also unique in this approach to culture and communication is the discussion of group identities and representa- tions as multiple, intersecting, and often contradic- tory, and the emphasis on the ways in which discourse, ideologies, and power are related.

Ethnography of Communication

While cultural studies scholars were calling for attention to social structures, Dell Hymes, a cul- tural anthropologist, was arguing for the merits of studying culture and communication in context. Similarly to the work of Edward T. Hall, ethnog- raphy of communication builds and expands foun- dations from the study of culture by anthropologists. In the 1970s, Hymes offered a framework for ana- lyzing naturally occurring speech and conduct in situ, which means in the field or community setting in which it emerges. For ethnographers of commu- nication, culture is a code of speaking and acting, a historically transmitted pattern of symbols, meanings, premises, and rules.

The ontological assumptions held by ethnogra- phers of communication are that individuals learn and communicate through shared patterns of

conduct, and these codes provide ways of identify- ing who is a group member. Researchers come to know and understand these patterns through extensive observation and/or participant observa- tion often combined with in-depth, open-ended interviews. The observed social practices reveal ontological processes related to what it means to have a particular group identity, what is appropri- ate and prescribed conduct, the scenes and spaces in which particular activities take place, and ways in which people assign meaning and make sense of their lives. Context is revealed, for example, by categorizing the location in which contact occurs as well as noting discursive references to places and spaces or descriptions of institutions as people talk together. Ethnographers define culture as socially constructed through human conduct.

Postcolonial Approaches

Postcolonial studies emerged in the 1970s as economies were becoming multinational, com- puter technology was bringing in an information age, and academics were entering into a postmod- ern era. What is unique about postcolonial studies is the call for identifying historical links, uncover- ing erasures of historical events, and carefully examining geopolitical relations and inter/national histories in the study of culture and communica- tion. Along with cultural studies scholars, postco- lonial studies scholars also examine forms of intersecting nationalities, race, sex, and class posi- tions. A prominent figure in postcolonial studies is Edward Said, who critiqued the ways in which discourses such as those dealing with “Orientalism” colonize and position groups into marginalized or subordinate positions. This movement seeks to understand the effects of macrocontextual factors such as histories and economies, institutional norms such as government and political policies, and international orientations such as imperialism on national and regional cultures.

Cultural Types Theories

Interested in increasing contact among peoples of the world, Geert Hofstede, a social psycholo- gist, conducted research on IBM multinational sites and identified dimensions of cultural variabil- ity based on scaled measurements of business

283Culture and Communication

employees in 70 countries. His work on dimen- sions of cultural variability addressed such dimen- sions as individualism–collectivism, high–low power distance, masculinity–femininity, and high– low tolerance for uncertainty. These dimensions became widely researched in psychology, sociol- ogy, business, and communication and were adopted widely by trainers in corporate and inter- national relations settings.

Hofstede conceptualized culture as a mental program or software of the mind. He operational- ized these patterns of mental programs through measuring group members’ preferences (social– psychological orientations across four dimensions of cultural variability). These mental programs are learned and shared among group members who share a cultural affiliation such as national citizen- ship. Because ontologically, group members from a particular nation are socialized with similar mental programs and behavioral norms, they learn to pre- fer similar behaviors. Scholars approach knowl- edge generation by assuming not only that these dimensions or types can be measured, but also that they are useful to describe, predict, and explain cultural preferences for conduct. The types have been applied to account for the behavior of over 50 national groups.

William Gudykunst, building on experience in Asia, studied personal relationship development among strangers and acquaintances from different nations. He developed a theory of anxiety and uncertainty management in the 1980s and argued for giving primary attention to intercultural encounters rather than cross-cultural comparisons of cultural communication styles. His own work on culture and communication features theorizing in the form of axioms or verifiable relationships among variables, such as levels of self-esteem and tolerance for anxiety, and use of scaled instru- ments. These allow for objectivity, quantification and measurement, consistency across different groups since the same instruments are used with diverse samples, statistically verifiable prediction, and generalization to wider populations.

Cultural types theorists, therefore, conceptual- ize culture as social–psychological patterns that can be measured based on dimensions such as individualism–collectivism. This work has been credited with increasing the rigor and precision of theorizing, extending social–psychological research

about intercultural relating, and demonstrating the value of empirically testing and systematically building particular theories.

International Communication

Given the information age and the globalization of economic systems, scholars interested in mass communication became interested in issues related to information flow, social marketing, and influ- ence of products and strategies across national borders. For international communication schol- ars, culture was thus conceived in terms of infor- mation, the various media forms through which broadcast and print media traveled and their impacts on diverse groups, as well as multinational products that were marketed internationally.

Such scholars also study the role of information and communication in developing countries. Scholars interested in development often appro- ached culture as a set of living conditions that were characterized by poverty or lack of technological innovation as well as attitudes, values, and beliefs that impacted particular ways of life. Communication strategies were developed by U.S. and European scholars to introduce cultural change in such regions as India, Africa, and Latin America.

A leading development scholar was Everett Rogers. His model of diffusion of innovations includes stages of social change ranging from knowledge acquisition, persuasion, reaching a deci- sion, implementation of a new innovation, and confirmation of use. As time progressed, other development scholars turned their attention to community-based participative action approaches that centered on enhancement of social justice, communities defining what they needed and how to introduce change, and the collaborative develop- ment of sustainable strategies. In the newer approaches to development, culture is viewed as a set of communicative actions and identities that the community constructs, as well as a set of contextual structures such as government policies and eco- nomic systems that both enable and constrain the lives and relationships of community members.

Interpretive Theories of Cultural Identities

During the 1980s in the United States, other scholars became interested in building knowledge

284 Culture and Communication

about cultural identities in a more contextually based and experientially relevant manner. Scholars such as Mary Jane Collier, among others, theorized that in various interactional settings, individuals enact multiple cultural identities that overlap and are sometimes contradictory and that there is a diversity of voices within discourses from those aligning with the same national or ethnic group.

Culture, in this orientation, is seen as an enacted, emergent, contextual alignment with a cultural system or cultural group. In this orienta- tion, culture is defined as an emergent group iden- tity that becomes evident in a set of communicative codes, norms for conduct, patterns of premises and interpretations, and outcomes, such as relationship or status positioning. Epistemologically, scholars ask individuals to share narratives about their cul- tural group identities or to describe recalled con- versations that constructed or impacted cultural identities and/or analyzed public discourses.

Some interpretive scholars place attention on individuals’ accounts of their experiences of enacting different cultural identities and/or accounts of being ascribed stereotypical cultural identities. Other interpretive scholars look for culture in group and public discourses, examin- ing such factors as membership categorization practices, avowal and ascription of cultural iden- tities, and negotiation of racial contracts.

This interpretive emphasis emerged, in part, as a move away from social–psychological theories that linked national or ethnic background to com- munication style or psychological preference and a desire to better account for the role of context in cultural identity negotiation. Furthermore there was a recognition that cultural identities emerge in social relationships in which individuals are nego- tiating diverse status positions, and later, acknowl- edgment that power relations and structural factors impact cultural identity negotiation.

Some interpretive research was also consistent with the call from cultural studies and feminist scholars to understand multiple and contradictory cultural identities that could emerge in one rela- tionship or in one setting. For example, approaches were developed that emphasized cultures and cul- tural identities as plural and as both socially con- structed in interaction and institutionally produced by educational, political, and legal policies and economic conditions. Scholars began to advocate

for recognizing broader contextual factors as well as the immediate environment of interaction, and knowledge claims included recognition of diverse cultural identity locations such as nationality, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, gender, level of education, and so on.

Emphasizing experiences and accounts of indi- viduals about their group memberships and iden- tity negotiations, which places value on subjectivity, some interpretive scholars also began to call for more self-reflexivity on the part of researchers. In other words they acknowledged that the researchers’ respective cultural identities and training influence research orientations and interpretations and should be recognized as a source of cultural bias. More recent work on cul- tural identities features scholarship based on inte- grating critically oriented approaches to critiquing contextual factors and structures, building under- standing of socially constructed communicative texts and discourses, and summarizing what these communicative moves accomplish in the way of status and levels of privilege.

Summary

These are just a few of the very different orienta- tions to theorizing culture and communication that have emerged as influential in U.S. research. In the programs of research discussed here, there are similarities as well as differences in assumptions about what it means to be members of multiple cultural groups, what representations of cultural groups mean to audiences and consumers, the extent to which context is important and how it is defined, and ideas about how to build knowledge.

Mary Jane Collier

See also Critical Theory; Cultural Contracts Theory; Cultural Identity Theory; Cultural Studies; Cultural Types Theories; Diffusion of Innovations; Ethnography of Communication; Identity Theories; Intercultural Communication Theories; Postcolonial Theory

Further Readings

Collier, M. J. (1998). Research on cultural identity: Reconciling post-colonial and interpretive approaches. In D. Tanno (Ed.), Cultural identity and intercultural

285Cybernetics

communication. International and intercultural communication annual: Vol. 21 (pp. 122–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 79–98.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, S. (1986). Cultural studies: Two paradigms. In R. Collins (Ed.), Media, culture, and society: A critical reader (pp. 57–72). London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Random House.

CULTURE INDUSTRIES

See Cultural Studies; Postmodern Theory

CYBERNETICS

Massachusetts Institute of Technology mathe- matician Norbert Wiener defined cybernetics as the science of “control and communication,” and to indicate its generality, he added “in the animal and machine.” Wiener derived the term cybernetics from the Greek kybernetes, the steersman, who observes deviations from the intended course of the boat and communicates with the rudder to counteract them. Wiener rec- ognized the revolutionary potential of cybernet- ics for the development of technology and advances in the biological and social sciences. Cybernetics continues to offer a unique vocabu- lary for the study of communication.

The object of cybernetics has ancient roots. Heron of Alexandria (10–70 CE) was the first

chronicler of a peculiar mechanism capable of holding the flame of oil lamps steady. Later, simi- lar mechanisms were found in water clocks. In the 18th century, they reappeared as James Watt’s centrifugal governor of steam engines, which drove the industrial era. Since 1910, engineers called them servomechanisms. However, it was Wiener who realized that feedback loops and communication processes formed a unity not here- tofore conceptualized.

Cybernetics became established during a series of interdisciplinary meetings held between 1944 and 1953 and known as the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics. They brought together some of the most important postwar intellectuals: Norbert Wiener, Ross Ashby, Gregory Bateson, Heinz von Foerster, Warren McCulloch, Margaret Mead, John von Neumann, Claude Shannon, and Erving Goffman, who presented his early sociological ideas there. Cybernetics quickly expanded to embrace neuronal networks (McCulloch), commu- nication patterns in groups (Alex Bavelas), anthro- pological concerns (Mead), mind (Ashby, Bateson), management (Stafford Beer), political systems (Karl Deutsch), family systems therapy (Bateson, Jay Haley), and of course computation (von Neumann, Shannon).

Cybernetics was too radical to fit traditional academic distinctions and remains an enor- mously productive interdiscipline that gave birth to numerous specializations—mathematical com- munication theory, control theory, automata theory, neuronal networks, computer science, artificial intelligence, game theory, information systems, family systems theory, constructivism— and continues to challenge various ontologies (philosophies of being). In the late 1970s, cyber- netics took a reflexive turn, recognizing that the known reality cannot be separated from the process by which it is explored, giving rise to second-order cybernetics, fundamental to all sciences.

The use of the prefix cyber- in popular literature about intelligent artifacts, digital media, and glo- balization of communication—fueling a sense of liberation from authoritarianism, technological determinism, and geographical, even bodily, limitations—attests to how well the fruits of cyber- netics are growing in contemporary culture, albeit somewhat shallowly.

286 Cybernetics

Feedback

Autonomy as operational consequence of circular forms of organization unites most cybernetic con- ceptions. In traditional communication theory, feedback, based on circularity, is the response to intentional communication—interpersonally, lis- teners’ responses indicating comprehension of what one said, and institutionally, statistics of audience reactions to media content. This popular conception of feedback amounts to control of something. In cybernetics, feedback means circular communication, and control is seen as residing within a system embodying circularities. For exam- ple, when A affects B, B affects C, and C affects A in return. This circularity has several implications:

1. All components involved affect each other but also themselves via the others. It would therefore be difficult to single out one as in control of all others.

2. Circularities bring a system either to converge on an equilibrium at which it no longer changes or to escalate in some of its variables, perhaps beyond its breaking point.

The former is called deviation reducing, nega- tive, or purposive feedback, the latter deviation amplifying, positive, or morphogenetic (change of form) feedback. In conversations, negative feed- back might lead to consensus, while positive feed- back may escalate into a fight. Positive feedback may be carefully monitored, as in the steady growth of a business enterprise, or create unantici- pated forms. An arms race, for example, can lead to war and political or economic reorganization. Therapeutic discourse may destabilize a burden- some situation and spiral into a more desirable practice of living.

3. In the presence of disturbances from its environment, negative feedback may lead a system to adjust. For example, home heating systems, including a thermostat, render the variation in external temperature no longer noticeable from inside the home.

Bateson suggested that virtually all naturally evolved systems, from simple organisms to

ecologies and from conversations to social insti- tutions, sustain themselves in multiple circulari- ties. The preference for linear causal explanations, including for one-way communication, amounts to cutting these circularities open, effectively preventing understanding of the purpose, intel- ligence, morphogenesis, autonomy, and life of such systems.

Information

Cybernetic conceptions of information emerged largely in explorations of purpose. Bateson observed that circularities—from simple feedback loops and manifestations of mind to social systems—do not respond to stimuli but to differences. They are trig- gered by differences between what is and what should be; they transmit these differences to other parts of the system, which effectively process differ- ences of differences, and so on; and they ultimately replace the very differences that triggered the circu- lar process. He defined information as the differ- ences that make a difference at a later point. Bateson’s differences are related to George Spencer- Brown’s distinctions, Shannon’s choices, and Ashby’s variety. What they share is a reliance on relations among multiple events, not their nature.

Hence, cybernetic explanations of behavior in terms of information fundamentally differ from the causal explanations that physics has to offer. For example, kicking a stone propels the stone in the direction of the physical force applied, but kicking a dog yields a response that is explainable largely from what the dog knows about the kicker—information made that difference. Francisco Varela appropriately called the flow of these differences in-formation, and Ashby once characterized cybernetics as the study of systems that are closed to information.

The cybernetic conception of information is at variance with the popular notion of information as contained in or a property of messages, that is, without reference to whom, in which context, and relative to which prior messages they inform. Obviously, data generated for an analysis can inform only those researchers who know how they were generated. The Internet can provide informa- tion only to those who believe they read the docu- ments they retrieve as intended by those who wrote them. Thus, information resides within a system of coordinated interpretations.

287Cybernetics

Self-Reference

The paradoxical nature of self-referential state- ments like “do not read this sentence” or the inter- personal injunction “be spontaneous” has been puzzling logicians for centuries. Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell identified self- reference as the chief villain in logic, considered the paradoxes to which self-reference leads an abnormality of language, and proposed the theory of logical types, which exorcises self-reference from scientific discourse. Yet, everyday life is full of nonthreatening paradoxes. Zen Buddhists employ them as powerful teaching devices, thera- pists rely on them for identifying and treating com- munication pathologies, and many cybernetic concepts would be inaccessible without addressing their circularity.

Based on Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form, Louis Kauffman and Varela dissolved the viciousness of paradoxes of self-reference by describing the dynamics they set in motion. So, the paradox of Epimenides, the Cretan, who claimed “all Cretans are liars,” can be dissolved into this time series: From assuming he is telling the truth follows he is lying follows he is telling the truth follows he is lying, . . . ad infinitum. This dynamics renders self- reference no longer threatening.

Recursive Computation

Arguably the most important contribution of cybernetics is the development of modern comput- ers. The problem of self-reference was solved by adding time to propositional logic, meant to state facts. This move lies at the root of the development of recursive algorithms. Algorithms are step-by- step instructions for actions, like recipes and soft- ware that make general computers perform specific functions. Recursive functions are circular by repeatedly operating on themselves, ideally con- verging to the solution of a problem. Recursive computation transformed mechanical calculators into modern computers.

Much of computer-aided communication amounts to the reproduction of messages. Expanding on the choices thereby transmitted, Ashby devel- oped another concept of communication, intelli- gence amplification. Technologies of intelligence amplification utilize algorithms that iteratively

expand the capacity of humans for selecting among alternatives. Internet browsers, for example, go through millions of documents within seconds and select among them according to users’ search crite- ria. In the social domain, one can observe intelli- gence amplification in many situations, for example, when CEOs distribute decisions among the mem- bers of a corporation, communicating to them only how to coordinate their actions in communication.

The cybernetics of recursive computation and intelligence amplification has ushered in the com- puter revolution that drastically transformed con- temporary society, globalized business and politics, democratized communication structures, and undermined centrally controlled dictatorships. Cyberspace is a computational space, widely accessible due to the development of algorithms for user-friendly computer interfaces.

Stating scientific theories algorithmically rather than in natural language enables computer simula- tions of their entailments well beyond human imagination. Algorithmic theories of social phe- nomena, especially of the economy, communica- tion networks, ecologies of messages, artificial life, and systems with very many variables have become indispensable tools, vastly expanding scientific knowledge.

Self-Organization

Self-organizing systems develop indigenous pat- terns of communication and identities and protect them in the presence of interferences from their environment. They are organizationally closed by being immune to instructions from their outside. Interactions within social organizations, families, for example, can hardly be explained from where they reside. Families develop, reproduce, and maintain indigenous forms, a culture, secrets, and unique patterns of communication. Their manner of self-organization cannot be understood from their outside by detached observers.

Ashby’s law of self-organization identifies three properties: (1) Circular networks of recurrent communication stabilize such systems while (2) internal variation ensures their ability to move from one stability to another, in the course of which (3) communication becomes increasingly orderly and resistant to outside intervention. Humberto Maturana and Varela add to these

288 Cybernetics

(4) the ability to maintain their boundary, their identity. von Foerster demonstrated that self- organizing systems decrease their entropy (increase order) inside, and/or increase the entropy (decrease order) in their environment. Governments, for example, govern largely by keeping those gov- erned relatively unorganized—a collectivity of citizens—and prevent competing organizational forms from emerging. von Foerster also showed that random disturbances can speed up self- organization and called this phenomenon the order from noise principle. Self-organization pres- ents profound methodological challenges to the study of social phenomena.

Autopoiesis

Maturana and Varela identify autopoiesis— literally self-production—as the process that dis- tinguishes living from nonliving systems. Autopoietic systems consist of recursive networks of interactions among components that produce all and only the components necessary for such networks to continue producing them within a boundary. (Notice the necessary self-reference in the definition of this operationally closed system.) Accordingly, biological organisms are autopoietic as they continually regenerate their physical infra- structure in their location and in the presence of internal decay and external disturbances.

Autopoietic systems “serve” no function. Reproduction, purposiveness, adaptation, cognition, even survival are epiphenomena of the autopoietic organization of living systems. Allopoietic systems, by contrast, produce something other than what constitutes them. Designed for a purpose, artifacts like automobiles and factories produce something needed elsewhere.

Niklas Luhmann adopted the word autopoiesis in his sociological systems theory. He observed that social systems do not merely organize them- selves but metaphorically produce their own soci- ology. For Luhmann social systems are constituted in the communications that circulate within them. Their environment exists only in communi- cations about it, and human beings, while necessary to understand and rearticulate com- muni cations, are excluded from his theory for being a mere medium for communications to cre- ate further communications.

Cognitive Autonomy

Cybernetics made numerous contributions by applying the principles of cybernetics to itself. One is Ernst von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism and Maturana and Varela’s biology of cognition. Their epistemologies (ways of knowing) acknowl- edge that we humans cannot step out of our ner- vous system and determine the external causes of our perceptions. Early work on neural networks suggested that cognition recursively operates on its own processes.

From this fundamental cognitive autonomy fol- lows that the realities we see are constructed within our nervous system, including our interac- tions with an environment. Our realities do not represent what exists outside cognition but merely conserve our autopoiesis. Reality constructions are retained when acting on them succeeds to expected experiences. They may be revised or expanded when unexpected experiences are taken as opportunities for learning. But they are extin- guished whenever acting on them has fatal conse- quences to those who hold them. Thus, in ordinary life as well as in science, cognitive constructions of reality are variable and subject to an evolutionary mechanism.

Cognitive autonomy puts the cherished role of scientific observers in question. von Foerster noted that objectivity is the illusion of being able to describe the world without an observer, and encouraged cyberneticians, similar to what Mead had suggested, to include themselves in the domain of their observations. He called the practice of describing and observing one’s observations second-order cybernetics. Although describing one’s observing rather than its presumed causes introduces a circular epistemology, its attendant reliance on descriptions, on a representational conception of language, and on cognition does not quite escape the enlightenment project of describ- ing the world as is, even when acknowledging observers in their descriptions.

Language and Discourse

Language is a social, not a cognitive, artifact. Conventionally, language is an abstraction from what happens in naturally occurring conversations. For Maturana, language is consensual coordination

289Cybernetics

of actions, which is the root of conversation and related to co-orientation theory.

Cybernetics considers conversations as self- organizing, requiring no outside support. Conver- sations cannot be analyzed in terms of the logic of propositions, syntax, and semantics, but as lan- guage games (Ludwig Wittgenstein) consisting of speech acts (John Austin, John Searle) or conversa- tional moves that coordinate the cognition partici- pants bring to them. Conversations perform or enact the very social realities that participants con- versationally co-construct. Being self-organizing, the responsibility of directing conversations is shared among their participants.

Systematically constrained conversations are called discourses. A discourse (a) creates its own reality; (b) its objects are continuously elaborated within its discourse community, which (c) institu- tionalizes its recurrent practices, (d) maintains a boundary around what does and does not belong, and (e) justifies the reality it constructs to other discourse communities on which it depends for material support. Scientific discourse, for exam- ple, constructs realities so as to be amenable to investigation by scientific methods and in confor- mity with what a discourse community considers its subject matter. It is instituted in universities, methodologies, equipment, and publications. It draws a boundary around everything to which relevant truth criteria apply and justifies its theo- ries and models in terms of their usefulness out- side science. The coexistence of many discourses puts the idea of a universe in doubt.

Because discourses need to justify themselves, they are not entirely autonomous, however. Scientific theories, for example, are discursive products of specialized conversations, may occur in publications outside their discourse, and can affect the truth of what they claim to describe. Especially social theories, when entering the con- versations of those theorized therein, may become self-fulfilling, self-defeating, or remain irrelevant. The making or breaking of candidates for political offices by the media exemplifies how social reali- ties are languaged into being.

An example from public opinion research is Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence, a process in which citizens feel discouraged to speak in public when seemingly facing overwhelming opposition. Noticing the relative absence of their

own opinions in the mass media discourages citi- zens from asserting their opinions, which thus converges on silence as the attractor of this nega- tive feedback.

Unless irrelevant, the communication of theories can modify realities despite their proponents’ descriptive intentions. Since all communication theories must also be communicated, communica- tion theorists should recognize the epistemological implications of this fundamental self-reference and account for the dynamics their theories can set in motion whenever their theories enter the conversa- tions among interested parties.

Participatory Epistemology

Ashby initiated another reflexive turn. He demon- strated that understanding systems solely from observational data is limited to trivial machines. Nontrivial systems, such as contemporary comput- ers, humans, and social forms, embody various kinds of autonomy. They may become known in two ways—by building them or by interacting with them. Computers may be understood either way. Humans, however, cannot be designed or manu- factured. They evolve with their environment, and understanding them results from interacting with them. Ashby suggested that experimenters and their objects, analysts and their analyzed, and interviewers and their interviewees form a system of which experimenters/analysts/interviewers can know only the consequences of their own actions, their manner of participating, neither the whole system nor their objects of interest.

Similarly, networks of conversation, whether constitutive of one’s family, corporation, discourse community, or government, defy not only outside instruction but also comprehension by external observers. One has to join them to experience their progression—not as self-reflecting observers, but as active participants. Traditional conversation analysis, for example, limits itself to analyzing transcripts of verbal interactions, which omit what is essential to conversations: the experience of codirecting their flow.

Noting the many sociopolitical transformations that cybernetic discourse is creating in society, Mead went beyond Ashby and invited cyberneticians to expand cybernetics to include the consequences of their discourse and consider themselves as responsible

290 Cybernetics

participants or change agents in/of their own society. This reflexive turn encourages an epistemology of par- ticipation in systems under continuous reconstruction in which human constituents hold each other account- able for what they say and do.

Cybernetic epistemology explicitly abandons the unattainable and unethical God’s-eye view of the universe, common to objectivist scientists, for the admission that one can understand always only one’s contributions to a continuously evolv- ing reality. By locating abstractions and metaper- spectives in the language used during conversations, it is a bottom-up epistemology. It invokes a com- munication ethic that grants the human constitu- ents of a system of interest a measure of equality, agency (accountability), cognitive autonomy (indi- vidually owned and potentially unlike concep- tions), and the ability to communicate with one another (coordinating participants’ understand- ings). It acknowledges that promoting theories, proposing actions, using artifacts commensurate with one’s understanding of one’s system, and communicating with other constituents about that understanding change the very system as under- stood. The difference between unreflective partici- pation in one’s world and scientifically guided participation lies not in the latter having privileged access to reality but in accepting accountability to those who may have to live in the realities being advanced. It means constructing realities that pre- serve the circularity of human communication.

Klaus Krippendorff

See also Constitutive View of Communication; Constructivism; Co-Orientation Theory; Epistemology; Information Theory; Language and Communication;

Network Society; Organizational Co-Orientation Theory; Palo Alto Group; Philosophy of Communication; Relational Communication Theory; Social Construction of Reality; Spiral of Silence; System Theory

Further Readings

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.

Heims, S. J. (1991). The cybernetics group. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: Biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala.

Mead, M. (1968). Cybernetics of cybernetics. In H. von Foerster, J. D. White, L. J. Peterson, & J. K. Russell (Eds.), Purposive systems (pp. 1–11). New York: Spartan Books.

Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North Holland.

von Foerster, H., et al. (Eds.). (1974/1996). Cybernetics of cybernetics (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Future Systems.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.

Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine. New York: Wiley.

Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

291

DAOISM

See Taoist Communication Theory

DECEPTION DETECTION

Deception refers to the successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief that the communicator consid- ers to be false. This definition emphasizes that deception is an intentional, strategic act and does not necessarily require the use of words. Although many consider lying to include only outright fabrications, deception can take many forms, including concealment, omissions, exaggerations, half-truths, misdirection, and even playings such as tricking or bluffing. Telling literal truths that are designed to mislead should be considered deception, as well. This entry explores how humans detect deception and the theories that have been posited to explain deception detection. The con- siderable research on deception and deception detection, along with practical concerns about deception in everyday life, demonstrates the sig- nificance of this topic to communication theory.

Studies About Deception Detection

The study of deception detection has a long his- tory. Questions about the morality of deception and how to detect it have been explored by

Aristotle, St. Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Machiavelli, Darwin, and Freud, to name just a few. Despite recent developments in technology used to detect deception, such as polygraphs, MRIs, and voice stress analyzers, most deception detection is done by humans. In the U.S. legal system, as well as in others worldwide, jurors are the sole determinant of honesty and believability of witnesses and the accused. They rely on the person’s demeanor and manner of testifying to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Unfortunately, humans lack a high degree of accuracy in their deception detection abilities, rarely perform better than chance when attempting to distinguish lies from truth in research studies, and do even worse when the lie is against the self-interest of the deceiver (such as false con- fessions). Even deception experts such as law enforcement personnel, judges, psychiatrists, job interviewers, and auditors do not appear to detect deception with greater accuracy than nonexperts.

In order to improve accuracy, many studies have attempted to identify specific cues that dif- ferentiate liars from truth-tellers. Specific nonver- bal cues, such as a lack of eye contact or foot tapping, are often thought to be associated with deception; however, few cues are reliable indica- tors of deception, and many behaviors show no discernible links, or only weak links, to deceit. In reality, people often do not discover lies for days, weeks, or even months afterward, and deception is typically revealed by a third party, making nonver- bal cues leaked during the deception quite irrele- vant. Verbal cues are only slightly more reliable, and research has suggested that deceivers are less

292 Deconstruction

forthcoming than those who tell the truth; further- more, their lies are less plausible, less likely to be structured in a logical, sensible way, and more likely to be internally discrepant or to convey ambivalence than truthful statements. However, given the inconsistency of these findings in the research literature, the best method of deception detection is most likely to be verification of the information presented in a message.

Theories About Deception Detection

Through a series of lectures delivered at Harvard in 1967, Paul Grice presented a theory of language use that has come to be known as his theory of conversational implicature. Among others, one of his principles is the quality maxim—that speakers should try to make their contributions true, refrain- ing from saying anything they know to be false or for which they have inadequate grounds for belief. This maxim, like Grice’s other maxims, is an assumption that communicators must make in order to perceive others as cooperative in a conver- sation. Even deliberate and obvious violations of this maxim, such as irony, require communicators to use mechanisms called implicatures to indicate that the speaker is being truthful and therefore cooperative.

Steven McCornack created information manip- ulation theory in an attempt to understand the covert violation of Grice’s maxims through the use of deceptive messages. He argues that speakers can produce messages that violate the norms of coop- erative conversational exchanges either by violat- ing Grice’s rules or by adhering to Grice’s rules but presenting the messages in such a way that the listener is misled (e.g., through sarcasm). Recently Kelly Aune and his colleagues presented the theory of communicative responsibility, in which they attempt to take Grice’s principles a step further by examining the process by which communicators determine what their communicative responsibili- ties (including truthfulness) are and how they should satisfy those responsibilities.

David Buller and Judee Burgoon have also recently posed a theory of interpersonal decep- tion, which attempts to explain how senders pro- duce credible messages, how receivers process and judge such messages, and how the coordination between sender and receiver influences the process

of deception detection. Consistent with Burgoon’s previous expectancy violations theory, the theory of interpersonal deception suggests that under- standing both the structural and the functional features of communication is crucial to under- standing the interactive nature of deception.

Norah E. Dunbar

See also Conversation Analysis; Expectancy Violations Theory; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Interpersonal Deception Theory

Further Readings

Aune, R. K., Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., Asada, K. J. K., & Banas, J. A. (2005). Tests of a theory of communicative responsibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 358–381.

Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.

Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies. New York: W. W. Norton. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole &

J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3 (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.

McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 203–242.

Park, H., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144–157.

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

DECONSTRUCTION

Deconstruction is famously associated with the Algerian-born French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). One of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, Derrida is also known as one of the leading voices of what is loosely called post- structuralism. Over a distinguished career that began in the 1960s, he produced a large body of work that has irrevocably unmoored many of the most securely anchored ideas in Western

293Deconstruction

philosophical thinking. Through careful and inge- nious readings of key texts in philosophy and literature, both ancient and modern, Derrida man- aged to uncover in them a set of hidden contradic- tions that work against the best intentions of their authors. According to Derrida’s critical readings, philosophical arguments are no different from those in literature and, like them, are subject to all sorts of alternative interpretations, equivocations, paradoxes, even unacknowledged mistakes, in other words, various “accidents” caused by what he called the loose play of language traditionally considered to be the standard, even desirable, form of literary writing.

After the publication of Writing and Difference, Of Grammatology, and Speech and Phenomenon in 1967, Derrida was quickly recognized as a uniquely iconoclastic critic of Western philosophy, and his ideas, now called deconstructionism, began to circulate widely, crossing disciplinary boundar- ies and wielding ever-increasing influence in the humanities, social sciences, and beyond.

The result was a sizable quake under philoso- phers’ feet, a violent shaking that weakened phi- losophy’s boasting claim to being the first science of all sciences. Derrida showed that philosophy is not immune from the figurative exuberance of lan- guage and is essentially textual—a kind of writing no more and no less serious than nonphilosophical ones—and, as a result, the long-accepted tenet that philosophy is the most logical and judicious path to truth, goodness, and beauty is shown to be one of disillusionment and misconception.

It is important to note that Derrida hardly used the word deconstruction in his early writings and expressed his disfavor toward the term because of its negative semantic associations. However, after this term gained wide circulation and began to take root in contemporary critical vocabulary, he came to accept its currency and often commented on the word’s negative associations in an effort to clarify what deconstruction means and how it ought to be understood. One of the points he made repeatedly is that deconstruction does not affirm or assert a thesis of its own per se. Instead, Derrida prefers to define the term by saying what it is not, instead of stating straightforwardly what it is. Here he intends to impart two things.

First, in principle and in practice deconstruction does not and cannot affirm any position in relation

to its object of analysis. Instead of attempting to ground philosophy on a single unifying principle, as philosophers always do, deconstruction, by design, proposes no unifying principle on which to build anything new. Having no position to call its own, deconstruction is a kind of reading, which consists of reading with a fidelity that finally betrays the contradictions hidden within the text— fundamental contradictions that cause what is built on them to falter and collapse. This studied way of reading can properly be called deconstruc- tive rather than destructive; in fact, this way of reading is as far from being destructive as the text is from achieving its claims in that it follows the text in good faith, teasing out through this faithful following the warring forces that are within the text. Deconstructive reading, therefore, is para- sitic; it is always dependent on the text to which it is applied for meaning.

Second, following from the idea that it affirms no position of its own, deconstruction must also be understood to be a practice that eliminates itself. Deconstructive reading is possible only by virtue of the text it follows and cannot exist apart from the text to which it is applied. By allowing the text to speak for itself, deconstruction necessarily falls prey to its own operation. Being parasitic, decon- struction proceeds only to deconstruct itself. It cannot make truth claims because it would have to cause its own truth claims to disappear.

Although deconstruction is without a thesis of its own, it is not voiceless or without basis. As a parasitic practice, it cannot survive without a medium through which to operate. It would not be able to unfold unless there is a co-text, or discourse with which it is compared or understood, or con- text, a larger set of discourses that provide a basis for deconstruction. These co- or con-texts provide a frame in and against which deconstruction enacts the unweaving of the host text. This medium is language and what language makes possible; it is writing, including what writing means to say. Deconstruction takes place in writing: It reads the host text, rereads what is written, and rewrites what the host text claims to construct. Writing mat- ters for deconstruction because it is where the prob- lem of philosophy begins and ends, and it is also where deconstruction begins and continues to begin without end. This attention to writing, to how lan- guage works, explains Derrida’s obsession with

294 Deconstruction

texts; it also explains the notoriety of the phrase, for which deconstruction is popularly, albeit regret- tably to its proponents, known: “il n’y a pas d’hors texte” (there is nothing outside the text).

This careful attention to text helps us under- stand how deconstruction operates, how it posi- tions itself to begin to cut into a text in the way it does, and how this cut disrupts what the philoso- pher intends to say. To illustrate this, let’s imagine the following situation: After a hard day in the office, John and Etsuko decide to go for a quick meal before heading home. Driving along a strip in town where fast food chains are located, they agree to stop for a burger. Thinking about the options, John turns to Etsuko and asks, “McDonald’s or Burger King?” Perhaps out of politeness, Etsuko responds by saying, “Which one do you like?” Out of politeness, too, John quickly replies, “Why don’t you pick? They are the same to me.” Instead of making an apparently simple choice, however, Etsuko murmurs to herself, “Oh, no! They are not the same,” and starts to explain to John the differ- ent ingredients used by McDonald’s and Burger King and the different ways they prepare their meals. Little amused by Etsuko’s long-winded report and desperate to find a parking place, John bursts out, “Just pick one! What difference does it make?” On hearing this, Etsuko proceeds to dis- cuss in great detail the differences in tastes and nutrition values between a Whopper and a burger sold under the Golden Arches.

It is not difficult for us to imagine the frustra- tion John experiences as he listens to Etsuko’s lec- ture on hamburgers while searching for parking, and it is not difficult for us to appreciate the comic effect brought about by Etsuko’s sublime response to John’s apparently straightforward question. Etsuko is faultless in her literal interpretation: She understands the question, “What difference does it make?” and answers it accordingly. Pragmatically, however, she fails to decode John’s message accord- ing to its context, thus misunderstanding what John means. It is this misunderstanding on Etsuko’s part that makes us smile, and, more fundamen- tally, it is language—language as it is used by us to do things—that makes both Etsuko’s misunder- standing and our smile possible.

This example suggests that language and mean- ing are thorny affairs that often unfold beyond speakers’ control, catching them by surprise and

generating effects they hardly expect. Contextual variations notwithstanding, John’s utterance is not ambiguous or equivocal: It means what it says, and John intends it to mean what it is supposed to mean. From Etsuko’s perspective, the meaning of John’s utterance is equally clear: Phrased as a ques- tion, John’s speech is seen by Etsuko as a request to spell out the differences between the hamburg- ers sold at two different restaurants. However, we, as outside observers, may analyze the complication of meaning exhibited by this example. The fact remains that a seemingly simple sentence, “What difference does it make?” is capable of yielding meanings that are contradictory, meanings that end up neutralizing or negating one another. On one hand, it means, as John intends it, expressly that between two choices, McDonald’s or Burger King, there is no difference; on the other hand, since it comes forward as a question, the sentence can be properly interpreted as a direct request for the interlocutor, Etsuko, to specify the differences between two choices. To the extent the sentence requests a specification of the differences between two choices, it implies that there are indeed differ- ences between them. The two readings are equally valid, and they can be given, or rather give them- selves, only to negate each other. It is contradiction like this—a contradiction inherent in language when and especially when things seem to go on as usual—that causes a text to undo itself, to unsay what is said, and hence to make the meaning of the said finally undecidable.

Philosophical and literary texts are undoubtedly more complex and complicated than is an off- handed remark addressed to a fellow hamburger lover. So if a verbal riposte such as John’s and Etsuko’s can have contradictory meanings, then a text—philosophical, literary, or otherwise—will also speak inevitably and unknowingly against itself and fall victim to what cannot be controlled. To write, as Plato recognized, is to fight against the possible tailspins of what one intends to say, yet in writing, in making language say what one wants it to say, the writing itself also brings down what one thinks one is saying. Deconstruction takes place as long as writing takes place, as long as one writes.

Critics of deconstructive writings, particularly those by Derrida, often complain that such writ- ings are difficult to understand and even incompre- hensible. Where does this sense of frustration come

295Definitions of Communication

from? Is it not the case that reading and writing have never been and never will be easy? It is out of the difficulty of reading and writing—a difficulty of that which we call language—that deconstruc- tion comes to pass. It is this difficulty of language that deconstruction boldly confronts. It is also to this difficulty that deconstruction, nonthetic not- withstanding, ceaselessly turns and returns.

Briankle G. Chang

See also Critical Theory; Postmodern Theory; Poststructuralism

Further Readings

Bennington, G. (1993). Jacques Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and phenomena. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. (G. Graff, Ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology (G. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stocker, B. (2007). Jacques Derrida: Basic writings. New York: Routledge.

DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNICATION

The central thrust of human communication con- cerns mutually understood symbolic exchange. This entry considers the purpose and form of definitions, and the function of message, source, receiver, and channel considerations in defining the term communication. It discusses the conse- quences of different definitions of communication for the meaningful use of the term.

Characteristics of Definitions

Broad Versus Narrow

The term communication is commonly used in both broad and narrow senses, from simple human contact to technical uses as in information theory. Defining communication broadly, perhaps as the transfer of information, provides the advantage of including most or all the possible instances that the term communication might ever be used to reference.

This large number of possibilities will also include many actual instances that the user likely neither intended nor had in mind. Overly broad definitions are not “wrong,” but in many cases their breadth precludes their utility in delineating the area under study. Related problems are encountered when defi- nitions become too narrow, thereby excluding por- tions of what is actually under study. To be useful, definitions in any scholarly area need to describe what is actually studied and to represent accurately the manner in which the term is used in practice in the discipline.

Inherent Meaning Versus Human Creations

One form of definition states “Communication is . . .” and lists its defining characteristics. This form assumes that words have fixed or relatively fixed meanings and that the function of definitions is one of discovery of the correct meaning of a term. The concept of fixed definitions implies that there are correct definitions and meanings that are inher- ent in objects—that all tables possess a form of “tableness,” for example—where tableness is con- ceived to be a known, preexisting, and relatively permanent property of nature. It also presumes that the definitional process involves seeking out this inherent preexisting meaning and then phrasing this meaning accurately in the definition. Alternately, definitions can be regarded as human creations that are changeable over time, context, sociocultural language group, and purpose. The definitional pro- cess in the second approach is seen as a search for utility of usage wherein definitions can be discarded or changed according to that utility. This second approach suggests “Let us use the term communi- cation to mean . . .” rather than “Communication is. . . .” The human creation approach involves evaluating definitions according to their ability to further the purposes of the persons involved in the communication transactions in question and is often more useful in studying communication.

Clear Boundary Versus Central Thrust

Definitions can also be used in an attempt to place all events qualifying as communication in one box and all events not so qualifying in another. The goal of such clear boundary definitions is to create certainty as to what is and what is not included in

296 Definitions of Communication

the defined term. An alternative goal of definitions is represented by the central thrust approach, wherein the major properties of the defined con- cept are stated and concern for boundary condi- tions is left for those instances that require such clear delineation when employing the definition in practice.

Characteristics Affecting Definitions

The Message: Signs and Symbols

Charles Peirce uses the term sign as an over- arching category in his system of semiotics, with indexical, iconic, and symbolic signs as principal subdivisions. Each of these subdivisions is intended to overlap with other subdivisions in Peirce’s system and is purposely ambiguously defined. For example, a defining characteristic of symbols in Peirce’s system is the need for symbols to be learned. Yet both his indexical and iconic signs also require learning, as none are innate. For the purpose of defining communication, a more useful system may be provided by regarding signals as the overarching category, where signals are all stimuli normally detectable by humans through any of their five senses. Two nonoverlap- ping and clearly defined subdivisions of signals then become signs and symbols. Signs in this method are detectable stimuli characterized by a direct, fixed, physical connection to their refer- ent, while symbols have only an arbitrarily defined connection to their referent. Thus sym- bols require some form of prior agreement between the communicating parties specifying the relationship between symbol and referent. Signs require learning, but not prior agreement, since they have a physical connection to their referent. Icons in this system are simply symbols that attempt to employ some form of resemblance to some property of their referent in the construc- tion of the representation used to denote them. Any such resemblance must be specified through prior agreement in creating the intended symbolic usage, and that usage can be changed and manip- ulated in the same way as with all other symbols. Thus icons do not require a special category. They are symbols. And signs and symbols are each unique categories that taken together cover the domain of perceived signals.

Language is one way of providing prior agree- ment. A language provides one or more defini- tions of detectable sound, light, odor, taste, and/or touch patterns that will be used as symbols to represent ordered symbolic events within a mes- sage. While signs, as defined, can represent only physical events, often only in the here and now, symbols can be used to represent any form of event: physical, phenomenological, the dreamed of and hoped for, unreal ideas and conceptions, the here and now, or the not-here and the not- now. Symbols also allow for great latitude in lying, where the ability to lie may itself be treated as a defining characteristic of human communica- tion. Some animals and plants use signs as deter- mined by their DNA in order to disguise, deceive, and mislead. But a direct conscious deliberate lie so intended by an individual requires some involve- ment with symbols.

Source and Receiver Considerations

Plants, Animals, and Machines

Broad divisions of source and receiver include humans, animals, plants, and machines. Machines communicate through simple information trans- fer, as in radio transmission and computer func- tions. Machine communication differs from the simple physical contact of objects. Information about course and position relative to an approach- ing vessel obtained by a ship’s radar and sent to an autopilot is clearly of a different order from con- tact between the hulls of the two vessels. Physical contact may produce knowledge if it is detected by a communicative system, but the phenomeno- logical information thereby produced is of a dif- ferent nature from the physical contact that produced it. This distinction recognizes the differ- ence between the physical and phenomenological planes on which humans exist. Communication ultimately concerns the phenomenological plane, involving knowledge, beliefs, and feelings and the relationship of information in this plane to the physical.

Human communication differs from the signal- ing behavior of plants and animals by transferring information in a way that fundamentally defines human communication: Human communication occurs through the use of at least some mutually understood symbols and may include other forms

297Definitions of Communication

of information transfer as well. While human symbols are completely arbitrary, requiring prior agreement among the parties for communication to occur, no such agreement is required by animals and plants. Animal and plant message systems are signlike, essentially determined by DNA. Plants and animals employing these message forms can- not alter them or their meanings at will. Humans can and do alter forms and meanings and can carry their arbitrarily defined symbols with them rather than lugging along the objects or bringing forth the concepts they represent. This apparently minor distinction—the ability to change the mean- ing of symbols by agreement—is the basis for all human knowledge, stored symbolically within the human brain, libraries, and hard drives. It is also the basis of human communication.

Intent of the Source

Human communication can be defined either with or without the involvement of intent on the part of the source. In the study of persuasion, knowledge of the intent of a source regarding the desired effect of a message on a receiver is needed in order to determine the relative success of a per- suasive message. Aside from the evaluation of the efficacy of persuasive messages, intent is not required as a definitional requirement for human communication unless unintentional messages, such as in much of nonverbal behavior, are specifically intended to be ruled out of consideration.

One Cannot Not Communicate

Related to the definitional consideration of intent is Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Donald Jackson’s suggestion that one cannot not communicate. To accept this suggestion requires an exceptionally broad and unusual definition of communication. This broad usage implies that communication occurs whenever any human is simply present, regardless of whether the person is alone or whether any communicative actions are taken or avoided by the human. In the narrower original sense, the phrase refers to the inability of any potential source or situational actor to stop a potential receiver from making inferences about the potential source’s actions or lack thereof. Nonverbal cues can always be interpreted by a

receiver regardless of whether the source actually did or did not emit the cues, did or did not intend to emit the cues, or was asleep or deceased. A more direct phrasing of one cannot not communi- cate might suggest that people will invariably make inferences about the behavior of another person, though they may be incorrect in those inferences and though the behaviors that may have led to the inferences may have been imagined by the receiver rather than emitted by the source. Nothing in the phrase one cannot not communi- cate implies the need for symbolic or signlike behavior by a source, the existence of a message, the existence of a communicative interaction, or the existence of any degree of source–receiver shared meaning. Rather, communication is judged to exist whenever an observer creates meaning. The phrase operates heuristically concerning how the term communication might most usefully be defined. If communication is defined only as meaning creation by one person through observa- tion of anything about another person, then we could conclude that one cannot not communicate. With other definitions of communication, it is quite possible to not communicate.

Considerations Related to Channel

A third consideration in defining communica- tion, beyond those of the message and source– receiver considerations, involves the channel. The term communications is often used in reference to the media or channels of communication. Three principal issues relevant to defining human communication concern nonverbal communica- tion, intrapersonal communication, and the extent of completion of the transmission–interaction process.

Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication

In 1904 a retired German schoolteacher owned a horse named Hans. The teacher spoke to the horse and taught the horse to send messages back to him using hoof tapping as the coding system. Hans could do simple numerical calculations when given the arithmetic problems orally and could encode words by converting letters into a number of taps. This implied that the horse had

298 Definitions of Communication

communicative ability since he could receive and apparently understand symbolic messages and could respond to them in a reasonable manner. This was truly remarkable for a horse, who was thus renamed Clever Hans. In fact, Hans could behave, but he could not communicate. Hans’s “communication” occurred solely in the minds of his human listeners. Hans could tell when his lis- teners wanted him to stop tapping through an awareness of their nonverbal behaviors. He wanted the rewards he received from them when he stopped but received the rewards only if he stopped when people wanted him to stop. This occurred when he reached a number of taps that had a specific mental significance for the people, significance not shared by the horse. Hoof tapping is nonverbal behavior, not nonverbal communica- tion. The fact of meaning assignment occurring inside the heads of listeners with respect to the horse’s behavior does not provide a particularly useful definition of communication. No common meanings for the communicative behaviors of the horse were shared between the people and the horse. It may be useful to suggest that some degree of shared common meaning between a source and a receiver must occur before any behavior, verbal or nonverbal, is considered communicative.

Intrapersonal Communication

Intrapersonal communication, communication within a person or between a person and himself or herself, is a form or class of thinking, just as nonverbal communication is a form or class of nonverbal behavior. Intrapersonal communication cannot be identical to thinking or it would be nothing more than thinking. There would be no reason for its existence as a concept. It differs from thinking as a generic concept in its emphasis on the existence of a dialogue occurring within one person and its focus on the message-creation and meaning-creation processes. Intrapersonal communication is often conceived as involving a conversation or sharing of meaning between two positions or modes of thought within a person. It involves shared meanings between the dialogic entities. Unlike generic nonverbal behavior, think- ing itself involves the use of symbolic forms. Thus its subsets such as intrapersonal communication inherently involve the symbolic transfer of

meaning, possibly between two dialogic positions within a person.

The Transmission Process

Communication involves a sequence of commu- nicative events that, individually, constitute insuf- ficient conditions for its existence. The boundary conditions for the departure and end points of each event in the sequence are clearly elastic, with the ordering sequence of the events relatively but not absolutely fixed and the departure point for analysis within the sequence arbitrary.

The following communicative events both specify a sequence and provide a template for con- sidering the difference between attempts to com- municate and communication. They assume a written message but are adaptable to all channels and are but one way of punctuating a communica- tion situation. The question becomes, would a specific punctuated instance or sequence of events be communication or simply an attempt to com- municate if the sequence progressed only to the first element of the sequence, to the second ele- ment, and so forth:

1. The possibility of composing a message is considered.

2. A message is considered and intended, but not composed.

3. A message is intended to be sent and is composed, but is not sent.

4. The message is composed, intended, and sent but not received.

5. The message is composed, intended, sent, and received but not detectible as received by the receiver.

6. The message is detectible, received with the source’s knowledge, but not opened.

7. The message is received, recognized as such by the receiver, opened but not processed.

8. The message is received, opened, and partially processed.

9. The message is opened and processed, but not understood.

10. The message is processed and understood to an extent but with no measurable cognitive or emotional change in the receiver.

299Deliberative Democratic Theories

11. The message is understood to an extent with consequent phenomenological change, but without any externally observable response.

12. The message is intended, composed, sent, received, detected, recognized as a message, opened, processed, understood, and interpreted, with an externally observable response, but without a reply.

13. The message is composed and so forth, with an externally observable response, and sending a reply is considered.

And so forth.

This sequence is one way of segmenting a com- munication process. The lines between the given event segments could be drawn at other points, and different elements of the process could be selected for discussion. In this sequence of events, Event 13 is similar for the receiver to Event 1 for the source. The unstated continuation of the sequence through Events 14 to 25 if phrased similarly to Events 1 to 13 would complete the feedback loop, with Event 26 for the original source in the event sequence similar to Event 1 for that source, the possibility of composing a reply to the reply. Defining communication as any set of events that does not include at least Segments 1 to 11 would suggest that speaking to someone in language X who does not understand X is com- munication, rather than simply a communicative attempt.

Similarly, when an academic area concerns itself almost exclusively with message construc- tion, as in Events 1 to 5 and little beyond, it may be more accurately named as an area concerned with one or more such forms of message construc- tion rather than one of communication itself. Persons studying communication implicitly assume the existence of some or all these elements within the context of their work. Making the elements included in their work explicit may be useful in furthering the study of communication. As with all fields, that of communication is usefully informed by work in many areas of study that do not in and of themselves constitute the central thrust of communication, but are of fundamental importance to its understanding.

Thomas M. Steinfatt

See also Constitutive View of Communication; General Semantics; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Process of Communication; Semiotics and Semiology

Further Readings

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Berlo, D. K. (1977). Human communication: The basic proposition. In T. M. Steinfatt (Ed.), Readings in interpersonal communication (pp. 15–25). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Newman, J. (1960). A rationale for a definition of communication. Journal of Communication, 10, 115–124.

Sebeok, T. A., & Rosenlthal, R. (Eds.). (1981). The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses, whales, apes, and people. New York: Academy of Sciences.

Steinfatt, T. M. (1976). Human communication. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

Winer, M., Devoe, S., Rubinow, S., & Geller, J. (1972). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication. Psychological Review, 79, 185–214.

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORIES

Deliberative democratic theories comprise a diverse array of approaches and insights on delib- erative democracy, the idea that citizens directly contribute to ongoing substantive and inclusive public discussion and debate and seek to arrive at reasoned consensus through appeals to the public good. Deliberative democratic theories also emphasize the necessity of deliberation within government itself and especially in those gover- nance practices in which public officials and citi- zens work together. This body of work consists of insights from many sources—from advances in moral or political philosophy to the testing of novel empirical hypotheses. With origins in

300 Deliberative Democratic Theories

critiques of existing political practices, delibera- tive democratic theory has grown into a complex interdisciplinary body of intellectual, method- ological, and practical scholarship.

Conceptualizing Deliberation and Democracy

Contemporary work on deliberation often traces back to the writings of German social theorist Jürgen Habermas, who argued that modern political systems needed to sustain a vibrant pub- lic sphere, a space in which diverse members of a society freely interact and address common con- cerns outside formal public institutions. In an ideal speech situation, people could debate issues based solely on the merits of their arguments, uninfluenced by inequalities in participants’ social, economic, or legal standing.

Though suggested as a philosophical abstraction (and background assumption underlying demo- cratic political and legal discourse), early delibera- tive theory written or inspired by Habermas drew criticism for its lack of realism. In particular, the difference critique holds that unfettered delibera- tion cannot occur, owing to pervasive inequalities among citizens in any society. In this view, promot- ing deliberative ideals glosses over such differences and confers unwarranted political legitimacy on public institutions. Public discourse norms should never promote deliberation to the exclusion of alternative forms of speech, such as personal testi- mony and advocacy, particularly within and between different subpublics unlikely to share com- mon interests. Even amid this critique, however, some theorists developed full-scale conceptions of democracy inspired by the deliberative ideal.

Empirical Deliberative Theory and Practice

Since the late 1990s, much deliberative democratic theory and research have focused on the actual practice of political conversation, discussion, debate, dialogue, and other communicative prac- tices that can, at times, represent aspects of the deliberative ideal. Empirical theories vary in their definitions of deliberation but generally under- stand it to be a discursive process of carefully weighing diverse arguments about the most appro- priate form of action to take in addressing a public problem. Deliberation involves gaining

background knowledge and exploring alternative solutions, all respecting the equality of speaking opportunities and the full diversity of participant viewpoints and experiences.

This conception of deliberation grounds in the actual practice of deliberation. Beginning with citizens’ juries and planning cells in the 1970s, a range of deliberative designs have been developed that involve lay citizens in governance, public debate, and civic education. In some ways, this represents a resurgence of the forum movement of the early-20th-century United States, but modern deliberative models often give citizens a more direct role in policymaking and draw from inter- national experiments with consensus conferences, deliberative polls, national issues forums, partici- patory budgeting, study circles, 21st-century town meetings, and other processes.

The bulk of empirical work on deliberation has scrutinized the effects of these deliberative prac- tices (or lower-grade simulations of them). In particular, theorists have devoted considerable attention to how participants in deliberative events change the quality and direction of their policy- relevant attitudes. The general hypothesis animat- ing much deliberative research maintains that participants refine their unreflective opinions into considered judgments through the experience of hearing and advancing arguments that are inter- woven with both personal experiences and general information. In some cases, theorists maintain that participants are likely to change their basic position on an issue, shifting from one point of view to another. In the aggregate, this could pro- duce something approaching the elusive ideal of a broad public consensus.

The findings of numerous studies, however, show that deliberative events only crystallize public opinion around a shared judgment under special circumstances. Studies of political conver- sations, loosely structured discussions, and medi- ated deliberative experiences, such as watching a news program on an issue, are more likely to sharpen the clarity and consistency of partici- pants’ original views, particularly when the activ- ity involves sophisticated participants who can recognize the others present who share their own views. By contrast, a broad consensus often emerges in carefully designed events that ensure sustained deliberation among a diverse

301Dialogue Theories

cross-section of the public. For example, the British Columbia Citizens Assembly brought together a large random sample of that province’s citizens to discuss electoral reform over the course of several months. By the end, the participants reached a near consensus on advocating a new voting system that, prior to deliberation, almost none had even known existed.

Other deliberative theories under development explore how deliberation in juries, forums, and other venues shapes participants’ subsequent civic attitudes and behavior. Additional work seeks to clarify the circumstances under which public delib- eration influences public policy or the local com- munity’s future civic capacity and appetite for a more deliberative approach to politics in general.

Both qualitative and quantitative research also investigates what kind of communication actually takes place during ostensibly deliberative events face-to-face and online. Early findings suggest that deliberation involves a considerable amount of storytelling and quasi-narrative speech. Formal argument and counterargument appear less com- mon, unless built into the structure of the event itself. These early findings complicate empirical deliberative theory by pointing to the importance of clarifying precisely what kinds of communica- tion behavior (and cognition) operate in delibera- tion and the long-term attitudinal and behavioral impacts of these differences on participants, policymaking, and community politics.

John Gastil

See also Critical Theory; Dialogue Theories; Ordinary Democracy; Political Communication Theories; Public Sphere

Further Readings

Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.

Dahlberg, L. (2005). The Habermasian public sphere: Taking difference seriously. Theory and Society, 34, 111–136.

Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.

Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DEPENDENCY THEORIES

See Asian Communication Theory; Digital Divide; Flow and Contra-Flow; Free Flow Doctrine; Informatization; International Communication Theories; International Development Theories; New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO); Uses, Gratifications, and Dependency

DIALOGUE THEORIES

From a communication perspective, dialogue rep- resents a form of discourse that emphasizes listen- ing and inquiry, with the aims of fostering mutual respect and understanding. Dialogue allows com- municators to become aware of the different ways that individuals interpret and give meaning to similar experiences. It is viewed as a dynamic, transactional process, with a special focus on the quality of the relationship between participants.

The term dialogue derives from the Greek dialo- gos, in which logos refers to meaning and dia is a prefix that translates as through or across. Implied in its Greek roots is the notion that meaning emerges from interaction; it is not something that already exists, waiting to be discovered. Meaning is co-constituted through communication, reflect- ing both the form of message exchange and the relationship between individuals. Dialogue is made possible by the attitudes with which participants approach each other, the ways they talk and act, and the context within which they meet.

Dialogue is often contrasted with monologue, a transmission-focused process that is primarily con- cerned with control of the other and of the situa- tion, and with discussion and debate, both of which involve dissecting or breaking things apart, with an emphasis on the presentation and defense of positions. Dialogue points beyond the everyday exchange of messages, implying a particular qual- ity of communication that makes possible learning and change, in both self and others. Dialogue does not preclude disagreement; indeed it allows participants to explore complexities of their own

302 Dialogue Theories

perspectives as well as those of others. Scholars advocate dialogue as a constructive way for indi- viduals to navigate their differences in interper- sonal, organizational, community, and public realms. This entry provides a brief overview of the primary “thought leaders” in dialogue theory and traces the way in which dialogue theory was incor- porated into and developed within the communi- cation discipline.

Thought Leaders in Dialogue Theory

There are many important contributors to dia- logue theory, but the following are considered to be those who most directly addressed dialogue in their writings: Martin Buber, Carl Rogers, Hans- Georg Gadamer, Mikhail Bakhtin, David Bohm, and Paulo Freire.

The existentialist philosopher Martin Buber placed the concept of dialogue at the center of his approach to human communication and human existence. His distinction between two types of human relationships, I-It and I-Thou, became a key focus of dialogue theory. In an I-It relation- ship, the communicator views the other as an object and manipulates the other for the communi- cator’s own selfish ends. The communication in an I-It relationship is characterized by self-centeredness, deception, pretense, appearance, domination, and even exploitation. Persuasion, prestige, and power characterize the exchange. In an I-Thou relation- ship, on the other hand, the attitudes and behavior of each communicator revolve around honesty, directness, spontaneity, and mutual responsibility. Individuals in a dialogic relationship do not attempt to impose their own views on each other, and each person accepts the other unconditionally, without attempts to change the other. Dialogic partners show an awareness that others are unique and whole persons, exhibit a genuineness or authenticity toward each other, and demonstrate a respect for each other that encourages mutual growth and development.

Buber also introduced the concept of the between as a guiding communication metaphor. He under- stood dialogue as rooted in the space that exists between persons in a relationship. It is this com- mon center of discourse that brings people together in conversation, not the individual psyche of the interactants. His emphasis on the sphere of the

between and the way in which meaning is co- constituted during dialogue takes the focus away from both individualism and collectivism and places it on the relational. This gives recognition to the interdependence of self and other, the intersubjectiv- ity of meaning, and the emergent nature of reality.

Carl Rogers, considered by many to be the most influential American psychologist and psychother- apist, was a central figure in advancing a dialogic view of communication. One of the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology, he devel- oped a client-centered approach to therapy, which he later termed person-centered as the application of his work broadened to include relationships in other contexts. He believed that listening was cen- tral to therapy and to all relationships, and he popularized the term empathy as key to meaning- ful communication. Perhaps more than any other leader of the humanistic psychological movement, Rogers shifted the focus of communication to the self. He believed that communication and relation- ships must center on concern for human feelings, human relationships, and human potential. He placed a great deal of trust in the innate wisdom of human beings, believing that if one could get in touch with the deepest sense of self, direction will emerge and constructive changes would occur without the need to be instructed, shown, or directed by others. He encouraged stripping away facades and moving away from “oughts,” expecta- tions of others, and attempts to please others. Rogers believed that a space could be opened for dialogue when relationships are characterized by a willingness to listen and to enter into a meaningful relationship with the other, genuineness in sharing feelings and ideas with the other, respect and regard for the other, and empathic understanding, which he viewed as entering the private perceptual world of the other and becoming “at home” in it.

Hans-Georg Gadamer was a philosopher who studied and worked closely with Martin Heidegger; Gadamer became interested in hermeneutics, or interpreting the meaning of written texts and sym- bolic artifacts, from his association with Heidegger. Gadamer’s goal was to uncover the nature of human understanding. In his treatise Truth and Method, he argued that humans above all seek understanding, and it is through language that this understanding is built. Both language and under- standing are living, dynamic processes, open to

303Dialogue Theories

continual development and change. Meanings that evolve between oneself and the other are open, fluid, and dependent on both the context of the encounter and the prior understandings and preju- dices of interpreters. He wrote about the positive impact of prejudice, which he argued needs to be recognized as inherent in all communicators and forms the basis for human understanding. Gadamer used the phrase fusion of horizons to characterize the understanding that develops between persons. He believed that the process of understanding is not based on empathy for another but involves the attainment of a “higher universality” that over- comes the limited horizons of each participant. It is a move from the separate positions of individu- als to a synthesizing position that includes relevant aspects of each person’s views.

Mikhail Bakhtin was a Russian scholar of litera- ture, culture, language, and philosophy who pro- duced the bulk of his writings in the 1920s through the 1940s but who was not discovered by Western scholars until the 1970s and 1980s. Though he addressed a wide range of topics, the concept of dialogue was central to his thinking. He believed that dialogue reflects both unity and difference, and at the heart of dialogue is the simultaneous fusion and differentiation of perspectives. For dialogue to occur, participants must build a common base of understanding and at the same time maintain the uniqueness of their individual perspectives. Bakhtin views dialogue as embodying a dialectical tension- ality that inherently gives it a fluid and dynamic nature. As participants engage in dialogic interac- tion, there is a dynamic interplay of expression and nonexpression, certainty and uncertainty, conven- tionality and uniqueness, integration and separa- tion. Dialogue, to Bakhtin, is an emergent process in which the interplay of contradictory forces cre- ates a constant state of unrest and instability, while also bringing moments of unity and synthesis.

David Bohm, an American physicist and col- league of Albert Einstein, spent most of his career in London. His early works dealt with topics such as quantum theory and the theory of relativity; later in his career he brought his understanding of theoretical physics into the realm of dialogue. He warned against the dangers of fragmentation, of breaking the interaction process into separate ele- ments that are treated as if they are independent of each other. Instead, he argued, dialogue must be

understood as a holistic process rather than as a collection of separate exchanges. This undivided whole is in a constant state of flow and change, part of an unbroken movement. Bohm believed that for dialogue to occur and be sustained, com- municators must suspend judgment about both their own and others’ beliefs and opinions. This suspension implies allowing a variety of perspec- tives to exist in tension, without premature attempts to resolve them.

The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire is best known for his influential book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In Freire’s view, dialogue allows us to move away from individualism and the focus on self to jointly build a learning community. He advocated a dialogic style of education in which the student’s own historical situation provides the starting point for learning. In his work with non- traditional students, he sought, through dialogue, to protect the dignity of learners, allowing them to explore new ideas without fear of humiliation. According to Freire, it is important to affirm the other, thereby helping to instill a sense of hope in the minds of an otherwise oppressed community. For Freire, dialogue can transform the world by enabling us to explore the type of world we desire and shape it together. Dialogue is built on humility to learn from the other, guided by trust between communicators, and pushed forward by hope for liberation from oppression. He insists on the unity of word and action: Unless dialogue leads to changes, it is just “idle chatter.” Although he also believed that action without dialogue was also inappropriate, he saw dialogue as the way to chal- lenge the existing domination that was responsible for oppression.

Dialogue Theories in Communication

Communication scholars have been concerned with the concept of dialogue from the field’s earli- est days, starting with study of the Socratic dia- logues written by Plato. Until around 1970, however, the focus of dialogue studies in commu- nication was primarily on rhetorical inquiry. This began to change when Floyd Matson and Ashley Montagu published their influential volume The Human Dialogue, which appeared in 1967. The authors drew heavily from the work of Martin Buber, adopting his contrast of dialogue with

304 Dialogue Theories

monologue. They described how dialogue pro- motes both development of self and knowing the other in the context of strengthening the relation- ship between individuals. They characterized dialogue as the “unfinished third revolution” in communication theory, sketching out a vision of communication that would move from detach- ment to connection, from objectivity and subjec- tivity to intersubjectivity, and from estranged aloofness to “something resembling an act of love.” Although Matson and Montagu’s works were not from the communication discipline, their book helped turn attention toward new ways of conceptualizing the speaker–listener relationship.

Communication scholar Richard Johannesen’s 1971 article “The Emerging Concept of Com- munication as Dialogue” provided an important impetus for the development of dialogic studies in the communication discipline. Drawing heavily from Martin Buber and Carl Rogers, he described what he called the major components essential for dialogic communication: (a) genuineness—avoiding a façade, stratagem, or projection of an image; (b) accurate empathic understanding—reflecting feelings as seen from the other’s viewpoint; (c) unconditional positive regard—confirmation and nonpossessive warmth for the other, without necessarily approving the behavior of the other; (d) presentness—avoiding distractions and being communicatively accessible; (e) spirit of mutual equality—viewing each other as persons, not objects, avoiding superiority and power; and (f) supportive psychological climate—listening without anticipating, interfering, competing, refut- ing, or warping meanings. Johannesen raised a number of questions that were given attention by subsequent scholars: Should monologue and dia- logue be viewed as mutually exclusive opposites? How does one study dialogue? Can it be subjected to empirical research? Can people be taught to engage in dialogue? What ethical issues are inher- ent in the concept of dialogue? What is the role of nonverbal communication in dialogue? In what communication contexts can dialogue function most effectively?

As the study of interpersonal communication advanced in the 1970s, a number of dialogically oriented textbooks were published. John Keltner’s Interpersonal Speech Communication, Kim Giffin and Bobby Patton’s Fundamentals of Interpersonal

Communication, Charles Brown and Paul Keller’s Monologue to Dialogue: An Exploration of Interpersonal Communication, and John Stewart’s classic reader Bridges Not Walls all reflected a shift away from the older rhetorical traditions in com- munication to increased emphasis on the humanis- tic orientation of the 1960s. This new focus on dialogue was not without its critics, and some even characterized the new dialogic focus as an “aca- demic fad.”

In “Foundations of Dialogic Communication,” written in 1978, John Stewart helped clarify com- munication scholars’ basic understanding of the dialogic phenomenon by articulating the philo- sophical positions in which the study of dialogue is grounded. He showed how (a) phenomenology’s emphasis on the metaphysical and epistemological primacy of relationship contributed a relational perspective to dialogic studies and an emphasis on the nature of the transaction between human beings engaged in dialogue; (b) the phenomeno- logical notion of intuition grounds dialogic com- munication’s experiential focus; (c) existentialism leads to a focus on self and self-awareness, leading to the importance placed on developing awareness of one’s own idiosyncratic communication values and behavior through dialogue; and (d) philo- sophical anthropology channels dialogic studies toward holism, in which emphasis is given to inte- grating cognitive, affective, and behavioral ele- ments of communication.

Stewart’s grounding of dialogue studies in phil- osophical inquiry helped move the study of dia- logue beyond its early emphasis on humanistic psychology and encouraged the further develop- ment of dialogue theory within the communication discipline. Additional textbooks with a dialogic focus appeared, but there were also scholarly books and journal articles. A review in 1998 by Kenneth Cissna and Rob Anderson listed more than 100 citations on the topic of dialogue, most of them published during the 1990s. The number has continued to grow in the 21st century, and dialogue has become a concept that carries across all communication studies. New books went beyond interpersonal communication, as dialogue theory was embraced also by rhetorical studies, organizational communication, media studies, and intercultural communication. At the same time, dialogue studies in communication expanded to

305Dialogue Theories

include a broader range of thinkers, including feminist theorists such as Carol Gilligan. Her 1982 book, In a Different Voice, described moral devel- opment from a female perspective, showing how women give more emphasis to connection, rela- tionship, inclusion, and caring, all of which are part of a dialogic perspective.

As works on dialogue grew rapidly, however, there was a tendency to define it so broadly that it became a synonym for all human contact. In their 2000 article “Dialogue as Tensional, Ethical Practice,” John Stewart and Karen Zediker advo- cated a more focused understanding of dialogue. They differentiated between what they termed “descriptive” and “prescriptive” approaches to dialogue. The former refers to an approach that views all human life as inherently dialogic, while the latter approach reserves the term dialogue for a particular quality or type of relating. Those who draw heavily from Bakhtin’s work, such as Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in their 1996 book Relating: Dialogue and Dialectics, fall within the descriptive approach. They argue that dimen- sions of personal relationships such as the self, competence, and relational development should be reconceptualized dialogically. For descriptive theo- rists, the essential human condition is relational, and dialogue is an omnipresent and significant feature of daily interaction.

Prescriptive approaches to dialogue, which also emphasize the relational nature of the human con- dition, are equally concerned with urging their listeners to change their communication patterns toward more dialogic modes of interaction. Dialogue, in this case, is a goal toward which par- ticipants can work. Interactants can make com- municative choices that will help create conditions for dialogue to occur. Those who base their work on Buber’s approach, such as Barnett Pearce and Stephen Littlejohn in Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide, are more prescriptive in their ori- entation. These authors suggest specific communi- cation practices that are designed to promote higher quality public discourse on divisive issues.

Many communication scholars believe that pre- scriptive approaches to dialogue are particularly needed in today’s multicultural and conflicted world in which value differences and struggles over scarce resources often lead to alienation, marginalization, community breakdowns, violent

confrontations, and other dysfunctional and destructive consequences. Although the character- istics of communication and relationships advo- cated by prescriptive theorists and practitioners may be difficult or in some cases impossible to realize, they can serve as an ideal toward which communication can be directed. Dialogic practices apply to a wide variety of contexts, including per- sonal relationships, organizational environments, educational settings, health care systems, and pub- lic discourse, as Ronald Arnett and Pat Arneson demonstrate in their book, Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age. Although the situated and emergent nature of dialogue makes it inappropriate to offer a set of specific steps that will guarantee a dialogic experience from a particular encounter, the acts of turning toward the other, focusing on the between, listening with respect to differences, and other dia- logic moves all increase the likelihood that com- munication will be enhanced and relationships will become more creative, fruitful, and rewarding.

Benjamin J. Broome

See also Critical Communication Pedagogy; Empathy; Hermeneutics; I and Thou; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Phenomenology; Rogerian Dialogue Theory; Social Interaction Theories

Further Readings

Anderson, R., Baxter, L. A., & Cissna, K. N. (Eds.). (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson, R., Cissna, K. N., & Arnett, R. C. (Eds.). (1994). The reach of dialogue: Confirmation, voice, and community. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Arnett, R., & Arneson, P. (Eds.). (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age: Community, hope, and interpersonal relationships (pp. 83–102). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & N. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue (L. Nichol, Ed.). London: Routledge.

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (2nd ed.; R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Scribner. (Original work published 1923)

306 Diaspora

Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber-Rogers position and postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8, 63–104.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Matson, F. W., & Montagu, A. (Eds.). (1967). The human dialogue: Perspectives on communication. New York: Free Press.

Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stewart, J. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 183–201.

Stewart, J., & Zediker, K. (2000). Dialogue as tensional, ethical practice. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 224–242.

DIASPORA

Diaspora means dispersal, the scattering of a people. Originally referring to the Jewish peoples, diaspora dates from ancient times. Commenting on the revival of the concept in the late 1980s, Khachig Tölölyan observed that diaspora was now used as a synonym for distinct terms such as expatriate, exile, ethnic, minority, refugee, migrant, sojourner, and overseas community. The term now operates as a significant sociological and critical category imported into communication studies that puts into play the human and social dimensions of globalization through the increas- ing movement of peoples demographically across and around the globe.

This angle on globalization—globalization- from-below—has been often neglected in the focus on the latest exploits of the American, British, European, or Japanese world-spanning multina- tionals. Arjun Appadurai, in an influential analy- sis, lists the new flow patterns of media and people (which he calls mediascapes and ethnoscapes, respectively) alongside the flows of technologies, capital, and ideas as constituting the current glo- balizing era. Importantly, he sees all these flows as disjunctive—they are occurring together in related, but unsystematic, ways.

Communication, media, and cultural studies about contemporary diasporas have been a correc- tive to critical analyses that focus on the inadequa- cies of media representations of minority cultures in Western societies. Indeed, a number of basic theoretical shifts well underway in these fields reflect the significance of global flows, or move- ments, of audiovisual media for actually existing diasporas. These theoretical changes are important because they show how peoples displaced from homelands by migration, refugee status, or busi- ness and economic imperatives use video, televi- sion, cinema, music, and the Internet to rebuild cultural identities. Such shifts could move from a social problem or welfare conception of the migrant to an appreciation of cultural difference; from a view of the media as an imposed force to a recog- nition of audience activity and selectiveness; and from an essentialist or “heritage” model to a more dynamic, adaptive model of culture.

There is considerable research on the problems associated with diasporic cultures. As one exam- ple, Hamid Naficy’s study of what he calls the exilic television produced by Iranians in Los Angeles in the 1980s is a model for how commu- nication media can be used to negotiate the cul- tural politics of both home and host. Naficy’s is the most theorized account of diasporic, hybrid cul- tural identity yet produced in its relation to audio- visual media. Naficy incorporates both the industrial and the narrative features of the televi- sion services and program genres developed by the Iranian exile community to show the relationship, as depicted on television, between the transna- tional experiences of displacement and migration, which in this case was enforced, and strategies of cultural maintenance and negotiation within the borderline “slipzone” between home and host.

The same attention that Hamid Naficy pays to the threshold experiences of exile from a broken national community is seen in Dana Kolar-Panov’s research. Kolar-Panov’s work goes below the level of consumption of mainstream media in capturing the role played by video letters used by overseas citizens of the former Yugoslavia to convey news as their country broke up during the early 1990s. This work illustrates the politics of discord between com- munities in the homelands as they are played out in the diasporas and the dramatic alternative textual representations of “atrocity videos,” which show

307Diffusion of Innovations

the real-time destruction of the homelands. These videos perform the role of virtual palimpsests— old “writings” that show through new ones— demonstrating the powerful role of the media in contemporary diasporas.

Marie Gillespie’s 1995 study set a benchmark in its detailed audience ethnography and its demon- stration of the need for different methodologies to capture consumption of various media for- mats (mainstream soaps; news; advertising; and community-specific, or narrowcast, media, such as Hindi television and film) among diasporic com- munities. This study examined the microprocesses, or daily practices, involved in the creation of a British Asian identity among young people in Southall, in West London. This new identity emerged against a backdrop of new ethnicities that surfaced within the framework of postcolonial migration and the globalization of communications.

The study of the diasporic ethnoscape and the world-spanning media flows—to a significant extent a condition of the ethnoscape’s existence— are dynamic internationally as well as locally. Such work enables cross-disciplinary intersec- tions of cultural and media studies with anthro- pology, political science, demography, and geography. Cultural and media studies’ nuanced attention to structures of feeling, identity, and community dynamics lend qualitative depth and texture to the more data-driven approaches to all aspects of minority cultures seen in the social sci- ence disciplines.

Studies of diasporic cultures, then, are as much about innovative uses of the Internet and other newer technologies as they are about heritage, preservation of identity, and nostalgia. As show- cased in Floating Lives: The Media and Asian Diasporas, the prevalence of computers in the home, use of the Internet, and participation in globally oriented Web forums were higher among economic migrants from east Asia to Australia than among the general population. An outward- looking, cosmopolitan ethos was a major part of the cultural capital of such households.

Stuart Cunningham

See also Cultural Studies; Globalization Theories; Hybridity; Neocolonialism; Postcolonial Theory; Transculturation

Further Readings

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjunction and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2, 1–24.

Cunningham, S., & Sinclair, J. (Eds.). (2001). Floating lives: The media and Asian diasporas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gillespie, M. (1995). Television, ethnicity and social change. London: Routledge.

Kolar-Panov, D. (1997). Video, war and the diasporic imagination. London: Routledge.

Naficy, H. (1993). The making of exile cultures: Iranian television in Los Angeles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rogers, E. (1969). Modernization among peasants: The impact of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Tölölyan, K. (1996). Rethinking diaspora(s): Stateless power in the transnational moment. Diaspora, 5, 3–86.

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS

Diffusion is the process by which an innovation makes its way over time to members of a social system. An innovation is the introduction of something new—a project, practice, or idea. The innovation–decision process is the process of pro- gression an individual goes through from first encountering an innovation to its adoption. Innovativeness is a measure of early adoption; individuals are considered innovative and poten- tial change agents if they are more willing to adopt new ideas than other members of a system and likely to do so earlier than others. Finally, the rate of adoption of an innovation is the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted.

Background

The French sociologist and legal scholar Gabriel Tarde can be said to be the originator of the basic idea of the diffusion of innovations; he coined and developed concepts that would become basic to diffusion research, such as opinion leadership and the S curve of adoption (although he used different terms). Tarde’s work was followed by anthropolo- gists such as Clark Wissler, who analyzed the dif- fusion of the horse among the Plains Indians—an

308 Diffusion of Innovations

innovative practice that allowed them to engage in almost constant warfare with neighboring tribes.

All the components of what is associated with the contemporary research paradigm of diffusion of innovations came together in a study in 1942 by Bruce Ryan and Neil Gross about how the adop- tion of hybrid seed corn diffused among Iowa farmers. Agricultural officials wondered why this technology—which resulted in as much as a 20% increase in production per acre—was not adopted more quickly (it took about 12 years from initial introduction to widespread adoption of hybrid corn). Ryan and Gross discovered that the farmers had to change virtually all their practices in rela- tion to growing corn, including purchasing corn from a company rather than using corn from the previous year as seed (especially difficult during the Depression). This study also suggested that the rate of adoption of most innovations will form a bell-shaped or S curve, with a few people adopting in the beginning, followed by mass adoption, and then a dropping off because of the success of the diffusion and adoption processes. This study became the model for many diffusion studies dur- ing the 1950s, conducted by rural sociologists studying a host of other agricultural innovations.

Meanwhile, the diffusion approach moved beyond rural sociology to influence other social sciences, including marketing, political science, education, geography, public health, and econom- ics. A major impetus to diffusion research in the social sciences was the work of Everett Rogers. Rogers earned his PhD in sociology at Iowa State University, where the studies of the diffusion of hybrid corn were done; his dissertation summa- rized what had been done on the subject. This dis- sertation became the basis for his now classic book, Diffusion of Innovations, published in 1962, in which Rogers provided a general model of diffusion, appropriate across disciplines and research paradigms.

While diffusion has been studied by scholars across disciplines, it has been of particular interest to communication scholars because at its core, the diffusion of innovations is a communication pro- cess. First, the innovation is made known through communication channels; if individuals are unable to find out about an innovation, diffusion simply cannot occur. Mass media and mass communica- tion are involved in the process in that they

contribute to awareness about the new idea or product. Interpersonal communication is also crit- ical to the diffusion process: The decision to adopt an innovation depends largely on discussions with peers who have already evaluated and made a deci- sion about whether to adopt the innovation. Today, of course, with cell phones, smartphones, and the Internet, the interpersonal–mass commu- nication link is blurred, and potential innovators are just as likely to find out about an innovation via a computer-mediated format and to evaluate it the same way—through Internet chat rooms and online product reviews.

Other communication processes are involved as the potential innovator considers the information received. Because of the novelty of the innovation, the individual experiences a high degree of uncer- tainty about it. Thus, studies of attitude change, uncertainty reduction, and decision making come into play in the diffusion process, especially as they impact behavior change since diffusion ultimately is about adopting a new behavior.

Over the years, diffusion of innovation has explained the process of adoption of many new innovations, from family planning among women in Korea to doctors prescribing tetracycline to safe-sex practices among gay men in San Francisco to the adoption of the Internet. How quickly news is diffused about events, such as September 11 and the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia, is another avenue of diffusion research. And the diffusion-of-innovation paradigm has also been used to study resistance to innovations—why a keyboard arranged so that the strongest fingers strike the most frequently used letters of the alpha- bet has never caught on.

Arvind Singhal

See also Media and Mass Communication Theories; Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow

Further Readings

Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1966). Medical innovation: A diffusion study. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Dearing, J. W., & Meyer, G. (2006). Revisiting diffusion theory. In A. Singhal & J. W. Dearing (Eds.), Communication of innovations: A journey with Ev Rogers (pp. 29–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

309Digital Cultures

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2008). Diffusion of innovations. In M. Salwen & D. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15–24.

Singhal, A., & Dearing, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). Communication of innovations: A journey with Ev Rogers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tarde, G. (1903). The laws of imitation (E. C. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Valente, T. W. (2006). Communication network analysis and the diffusion of innovations. In A. Singhal & J. W. Dearing (Eds.), Communication of innovations: A journey with Ev Rogers (pp. 61–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wissler, C. (1927). North American Indians of the Plains. New York: American Museum Press.

DIGITAL CULTURES

Digital cultures are social formations produced exclusively through engagement with information and communication technologies (ICTs). Also referred to as cybercultures, virtual communities, online communities, or Internet communities, they encompass a wide array of cultural interests and practices in different types of forums that are accessible only by a computer or other device with Internet connectivity. At the heart of any digital culture are social interaction and a network of relationships; communication scholars have an abiding interest in studying issues of identity, com- munity, and access in relation to them.

These terms can be traced back to and continue to be informed by the concept of cyberspace. In the early 1980s, William Gibson coined the term in his cyberpunk novel, Neuromancer. Bodies are described as mere “meat” that is discarded when the characters “jack in” to their computers to immerse themselves in a virtual reality. In the early 1990s, scholarly and popular accounts of ICTs borrowed Gibson’s term to imagine a spatial con- text for computer-mediated communication. The

majority of these accounts were celebratory, emphasizing the advantages of leaving behind the body and its problematic identities (e.g., race and gender). Cyberspace was seen as having the poten- tial to revitalize the public sphere politically and socially and forge new connections and common- alities among disparate groups.

Howard Rheingold can be credited with expand- ing the focus of discussion to the digital cultures that comprise cyberspace. He argued that the search for community was central to the social use of ICTs and described his experiences in the virtual pubs and salons of the Whole Earth ‘lectronic Link, a San Francisco–based bulletin board service in the pre–World Wide Web era. The other tech- nologies that enabled the creation of text-based virtual communities at that time included Internet relay chat (chat rooms), Listserv (electronic mail- ing lists), Multi-User Domain (MUD; multiplayer computer games), and Usenet (newsgroups).

A number of scholars have theorized about cyberspace and digital culture based on behaviors observed on MUDs and Usenet groups. MUDs involve fantasy and action role-play, loosely based on the game Dungeons and Dragons, but also social interaction. One of the most popular social MUDs was LambdaMOO, founded in 1990. Participants interact in various rooms of a large house. According to Sherry Turkle, the value of virtual role-play is being able to experience the fluidity of identity as characterized by postmodern theory. The reverse is also true: There can be real-life negative conse- quences of cyberspace interactions. The virtual rape that took place in LambdaMOO is perhaps the most infamous example. The “cyberrape” was per- formed by an avatar named Mr. Bungle, who ran a “voodoo doll” subprogram that allowed him to engage in sexual acts that could be attributed to other characters in the virtual community. The duration and intensity of these acts resulted in feel- ings of violation for participants in real life, raising questions about the boundaries between real-life and virtual communities.

As for the Usenet, it is seen by some as the original Internet community. Started by two Duke University computer science students in 1979, it began with five overarching categories to organize its newsgroups: alt.* (alternative), bus.* (busi- ness), comp.* (computing), rec.* (recreation and leisure), and soc.* (social issues). When America

310 Digital Divide

Online (AOL) gave its subscribers open access to the Internet in 1993, many long-time Usenet par- ticipants complained bitterly that the presence of the AOL subscribers increased the number of groups and quantity of posts dramatically while degrading the quality of discussion.

With rapid advancements in ICTs, cyberspace and digital culture have expanded exponentially and changed form. By 1995, dial-up bulletin board systems were largely replaced by pay-based online services such as CompuServe, Genie, and AOL, with their own discussion forums. By 2000, those forums, as well as the Usenet, had been eclipsed by Web-based forums (e.g., Yahoo groups and Delphi forums). Similarly, MUDs were complemented by graphical multiuser konversations and then eventu- ally overshadowed by massively multiplayer online role-playing games such as World of Warcraft and three-dimensional virtual worlds such as the Sims and Second Life. The most recent cluster of digital cultures, considered by some to herald the Web 2.0 era, includes social networking sites such as Facebook, blogging communities, and YouTube.

Media fans continue to comprise one of the largest segments of digital culture. One of the first mailing lists used for nonmilitary and nongovern- ment purposes was on the topic of science fiction. Research indicates that the Usenet newsgroups with the highest volume of daily postings were those related to the discussion of television, mov- ies, and sports. Today, networks and fans alike maintain discussion forums for every current tele- vision program. There are also virtual communi- ties dedicated to fan-produced fiction, art, music, and videos.

The scholarship on digital cultures has taken a critical turn since the early 1990s. Gender, race, class, and sexuality—informed by poststructuralist, postcolonial, and feminist theories—are under- stood as shaping and affecting social relations in cyberspace even if not exactly in the same ways as “in real life.” Until 2000, when gender parity was reached, most forums were dominated by men, with women reporting exclusion, harassment, and marginalization. Even today, the majority remains dominated by White, English-speaking, and middle- class participants. That said, members of real-life marginalized groups such as gays, lesbians, bisexu- als, as well as other self-identified queer and transgendered people, are claiming a piece of

cyberspace as their own. Queer youth in isolated, rural communities, for example, have benefited from queer-centered Web sites and discussion forums.

The cultural norms of the West still dominate cyberspace, despite the increasing number of Internet users in wealthier Asian countries, notably Japan and South Korea, as well as in India. The World Wide Web has always been a misnomer, and access, with the exception of a few pockets, remains very limited in the Global South (Africa, South America, Southeast Asia). The digital divide also manifests itself in the West. In the United States, for example, some poor African American and Hispanic neighborhoods still remain without an advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Hence, the digital divide affects which cybercul- tures are formed and under what conditions.

Rhiannon Bury

See also Community; Computer-Mediated Communication; Digital Divide; Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies; Network Society

Further Readings

Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. London: Routledge.

Bury, R. (2005). Cyberspaces of their own: Female fandoms online. New York: Peter Lang.

Dibbell, J. (2001). A rape in cyberspace; or how an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society. In D. Trend (Ed.), Reading digital culture (pp. 199–213). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

O’Riordan, K., & Phillips, D. J. (2007). Queer online: Media technology & sexuality. New York: Peter Lang.

Smith, M., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

DIGITAL DIVIDE

Digital divide is a term representing the gap between populations that have easy access to com- munication and information technologies and those who remain underserved by these technolo- gies. Issues related to the digital divide are salient

311Digital Divide

worldwide because of the widely held belief that inclusion and involvement in the global informa- tion and knowledge economy is an important measure of the “quality of life” in the 21st cen- tury. Consequently, being excluded by this emerg- ing economy is deemed a significant deprivation. The digital divide is an important concern for communication and social change theorists and practitioners. This essay highlights and describes key facets of the digital divide.

While liberals, libertarians, and conservatives are united in their determination to tackle this divide, their solutions vary in scope and substance. Empowerment, digital competency for economic development, and open access for all are just some of the objectives of digital-inclusion projects. Making provisions for digital dividends has become a priority concern for organizations such as the World Resources Institute and the World Bank. The World Bank, for instance, supported the Virtual Souk project in North Africa that has enabled rural artisans to connect to a larger, inter- national market for their crafts.

While access to and the affordable uses of infor- mation and knowledge have increasingly become a yardstick for development as defined by the International Telecommunications Union, the United Nations Development Program, and a range of multilateral and international aid agen- cies, the preponderance of technologically deter- minist thinking and the tendency to advocate one-size-fits-all solutions have seriously affected the efficacy of the global response to the digital divide. While there is certainly a case to be made for leapfrogging technologies, such as the use of mobile telephony in contexts previously discounted by or beyond the shapings of telecommunications, it would be shortsighted to infer from such exam- ples that a single application such as mobile tele- phony is the answer to the world’s digital divide.

What, then, are some of the key issues related to the digital divide? First, there is, unlike in the past, a willingness to interpret the digital divide as an aspect of other divides in society. In other words, the digital divide cannot be seen in isolation from other social differences resulting from poverty, sta- tus, caste, class, and inequity; solutions must fac- tor in this larger context of social deprivation. A second issue relates to the belief that because infor- mation and communication technologies (ICTs)

can effect change in society, the deployment of ICTs must be accompanied by parallel changes in local social structures given that these structures can either support access or indeed block access to those who stand to gain from digital inclusion projects. A case in point is whether issues related to caste are factored into ICT projects in Indian villages.

There is also greater appreciation for the fact that solutions to the digital divide—whether they be e-governance projects, ICT kiosks, online mar- keting, or the computerization of village-level information—require more than just a technologi- cal solution. Sustainable projects require political will, capacity building at local levels, the availabil- ity of language-specific software, intentional net- working strategies with a range of institutions, training in software and hardware skills, and last but not least, regular access to uninterrupted power supplies. Telecenters in South Africa, for instance, provide a range of services, from faxing to voice telephony. The more sophisticated ver- sions of telecenters offer e-governance, e-health, e-education, and other services. Issues related to scalability remain widespread, with the result that a number of digital-divide projects continue to be pilot projects with little or no possibility for upgrading or extension.

While there is enough evidence to suggest that digitalization can have a positive impact on the lives of people, more often than not digital solu- tions are imposed by well-meaning outsiders. Such imposed solutions, based on minimal consultation with local people, can result in people’s rejecting the technology for the simple reason that they have not been convinced of its worth. It is necessary for local people to be involved in defining their infor- mation and communication deficits and for them to prioritize the deficits that they see to be most important. Today, for the most part, the impetus for change solutions comes from governments, nongovernmental organizations, and international nongovernmental organizations, and also from hardware and software companies that stand to gain from increased connectivity.

There is also greater acknowledgment, particu- larly in communication and social change theory, of the fact that the issue with respect to the digital divide is not just access but affordable, sustainable access. This is a critical concern not only in the

312 Discourse Theory and Analysis

developing world but also in the developed world, where significant pockets of people, including the rural and urban poor in the United States, the socioeconomically disadvantaged living on hous- ing estates in all large cities in the United Kingdom, and small farmers in rural Australia, are yet to benefit from digital dividends. The reduction of mobile telephony charges in many parts of South Asia, coupled with the steady decline in the price of handsets, has led to a massive increase in rural mobile telephony and a consequent decline in the need for land lines.

Today, there is more openness to the need for appropriate technological solutions. Mounting concerns related to electronic waste (e-waste) have demonstrated the need for a better use of existing technologies and the need for adaptability, appro- priateness, and maximization of the potential of hardware and software. The digital divide is of key concern in communication and social change the- ory, communication and social movement theory, and theories related to global media governance.

The financing of digital divide solutions remains a thorny issue. While there are numerous initiatives— both governmental and intergovernmental—that are aimed at bridging the digital divide, funding tends to be project driven, dependency remains a critical concern, and issues related to sustain- ability remain a recurrent concern. The Global Digital Divide Fund, proposed by the president of Senegal at the United Nations–sponsored World Summit on the Information Society held in 2003, received very little support from Group- of-Eight countries or from industry. While there literally are thousands of digital-inclusion proj- ects spread throughout the world and supported by civil society and state, intergovernmental, and commercial sectors, there is as yet very little evi- dence to suggest that these projects are provid- ing answers to the need for long-term solutions to contemporary information and knowledge deficits.

As globalization continues to integrate the world into a global market on one hand, it is also responsible for marginalizing regions and people who have nothing to offer the market economy. These people in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and South Asia who live lives that are, in effect, beyond the market, need solutions to issues related to basic needs—access to food,

water, shelter, education, and employment. How to integrate these people into the knowledge era remains a knotty issue for all those concerned with the digital divide.

Pradip Thomas

See also International Communication Theories; International Development Theories; Media Democracy; Media Sovereignty; Network Society; New Media Theory

Further Readings

Communication Initiative, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & World Bank. (2007). World congress on communication for development: Lessons, challenges, and the way forward. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

Mansell, R., & Wehn, U. (1998). Knowledge societies: Information technology for sustainable development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Yoon, C. S. (Ed.). (2003). Digital Review of Asia-Pacific, 2003–2004. Penang: Southbound.

DIPLOMACY

See Media Diplomacy

DISCOURSE THEORY AND ANALYSIS

Discourse analysis is a term that comprises many different approaches to language, both in theory and in method. Some approaches find their prov- enance in linguistics and literary studies, yet oth- ers in sociology, psychology, or anthropology. They all share an interest in the analysis of text and talk, and their focus is language in use. In the theoretical and methodological underpinning of this starting point, however, discourse analysis arises as a contested terrain. After a historical introduction, this entry will focus on the forms of discourse theory and analysis that are applied in, or originate from, the social sciences. Most of them have also adopted the term discourse analy- sis as a way to present their approach.

313Discourse Theory and Analysis

Historical Developments

One of the greatest achievements of the earliest forms of discourse analysis was a departure from the traditional linguistic approach that started from invented or written data. Zelig Harris, a prominent linguist in the 1950s and founder of the first linguistics department in the United States, is probably also the first person to have used the term discourse analysis. He launched a research program aimed at unraveling general principles in language production by looking at regularities in actual usage. In practice, however, the focus on empirical data was still limited, in part because of the program’s taxonomic ambitions.

Some 25 years later, John Sinclair and Malcolm Coulthard developed a model of teacher–student interaction that started from a prototypical three- part sequence of teacher initiation, student response, and teacher feedback (evaluation). They found that departures from this sequence were “noticeably absent” for students. A missing feed- back was, for example, treated as a clue for having given the wrong answer. The comparative work of Coulthard and Sinclair was designed to provide insight into structures of interaction across differ- ent institutional settings. Although they drew on simplified transcripts, their approach put forward a substantial argument for the importance of studying real-life interaction. At the same time, this and related approaches were criticized for their urge to characterize everyday verbal interac- tion in terms of quasi-syntactical rules. Introductions on discourse analysis from that period, for exam- ple from Gillian Brown and George Yule, display the same emphasis on formal rule seeking.

Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences

Apart from the shift toward studying real-life materials, or the ambition to do so, discourse ana- lysts proposed a move in thinking about the nature of language, especially within those forms of dis- course analysis associated with poststructuralism and postmodernism. Language was no longer seen as a passive medium that smoothly conveys infor- mation about the world out there and what people think about this world. Instead, it was conceptual- ized as an active and constructed tool that co- constitutes the world around us. Accounts of reality are necessarily selective and should

therefore be understood as constructions rather than reflections of what is “really the case.”

This conception of language was not entirely new but inspired researchers to actively criticize the tacit assumption of language as a neutral vehicle that was still prevalent in most social sci- ence research. Different forms of discourse analy- sis have evolved, depending on how the notion of context was understood and the influence that was attributed to people versus structures. Some dis- course analysts emphasize the role of people as active sense-makers who use the context flexibly to perform particular actions such as blaming, miti- gating, and building expertise. Context is taken to refer to the local surroundings of talk and to broader cultural reservoirs made relevant in the interaction. Others were encouraged by the work of the French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault and lay more emphasis on discourse as a constitutive power in itself.

The Influence of Foucault

In the 1970s Foucault firmly introduced the ele- ment of power into discourse analysis. While not at all concerned with the analysis of verbal interac- tion, his influence on discourse theory and analysis has been huge. The French discours denotes some- thing radically different from the conception of discourse in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Instead of referring to everyday interaction, it refers to insti- tutionalized rules that govern the way a certain topic—sexuality, hysteria, romantic love, punish- ment, and imprisonment—can be meaningfully talked about. Discourse itself is power but not so much in the hands of people. Foucault focuses on discourses as constitutive of knowledge and mean- ing. Everything outside such a discours is without sense and significance.

Foucault’s so-called genealogical studies were historical and did not draw on records of interac- tion. The studies show how particular “sets of statements” acquire authority and act as rules, pre- scribing if and how certain topics should be thema- tized. Finally they come to manifest themselves as institutions. In the context of mental illnesses, for example, medical records of the insane are not decontextualized, neutral statements but powerful tools that help to fill in the very definition of what madness is and what or who represents sanity.

314 Discourse Theory and Analysis

Foucault’s illuminating analyses show historically embedded discourses that perform their work on the level of structures rather than through active agents. His approach, however, has not resulted in a distinct methodological perspective that acquired followers in the strict sense of the word.

Discourse Analysis and Sociology of Science

Unlike Foucault’s work, the form of discourse analysis that was developed within sociology of science in the 1980s positioned participants’ per- formative work at the heart of its approach. In a study among biochemists, Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay revealed the use of two contradic- tory interpretative repertoires (broadly discernible clusters of terms and figures of speech often assem- bled around metaphors or vivid images) with which the scientists accounted for the truthfulness of their and other people’s scientific work. The empiricist repertoire was dominant in scientific articles and was drawn on to explain results in terms of impersonal rules, with experimental data getting chronological and logical priority over interpretation. The contingent repertoire, on the other hand, was popular in more informal settings and referred to speculation, personal commitment, and social networks as important explanatory sources. Gilbert and Mulkay were particularly interested in the fact that the scientists needed, not one, but two different sets of accounts to explain their results in a satisfactory manner.

By the end of the 1980s Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell used the repertoire concept in developing an approach that first emerged as a discourse-based alternative for social psychology. The book Discourse and Social Psychology marked the beginning of a discourse tradition that had its roots in diverse disciplines such as the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, ethnomethodology, and poststructuralism. The notion of an interpretative repertoire was coined to capture the ostensible inconsistencies in people’s accounts of mind and reality that were not explained by the social– psychological attitude concept. Potter and Wetherell’s most important criticism concerned the interpretation of an attitude as an abstract, cogni- tive state of mind. When people give their opinion they do not so much express a mental state but rather perform a social action such as blaming

someone, reducing one’s own responsibility, or giv- ing a compliment. Views are designed and rede- signed to fit a certain functional context, and it is for this reason that they show considerable varia- tion across different interactional situations. The repertoire notion was applied in a wide range of disciplines, including sociology, health studies, and communication, and to a diverse set of topics, such as science discourse, racism, gender, and politics. At the same time, it has been criticized for its broadness and its tendency to overlook crucial details in talk.

Discourse and Ideological Dilemmas

With a similar eye for the importance of incon- sistency rather than steadiness and uniformity, the social psychologist Michael Billig and colleagues made a case for paying more attention to the role of ideological dilemmas in discourse. Their interest in ideologies and in dilemmas was in how ideolo- gies and dilemmas appeared in everyday life and, more specifically, in everyday talk. Ideologies were identified as always containing or invoking coun- terideologies, for example when the demands of intellectual theory clash with the routines of every- day life. Participants shift alignment flexibly from one theme to another and back (“that’s all very well in theory, but in practice . . .”), thereby tailor- ing their ideological repertoire to the interactional business at stake. The notion of individual free- dom may be drawn on to make up for the flaws of social responsibility and collective ideals and vice versa. In this sense, contrary themes within or between ideologies function as suitable “error accounts.” Rather than belonging to some ideo- logical periphery, they are mutually implicative and therefore part of how ideologies work.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

In the 1990s, critical discourse analysis com- bined more fine-grained, linguistically inspired analyses with an interest in power and social inequality. Despite their different accents, critical discourse analysts are united in their attempts to reveal the workings of language within social rela- tions of power and the normalizing effects of dis- course in this respect. They show a strong preference for data related to social issues such as gender inequalities and racism—for example, research on

315Discourse Theory and Analysis

how men and women are represented in the media or how different ethnic categories appear in policy documents. Critical discourse analysts have been inspired by predecessors as diverse as the Frankfurt School and Jürgen Habermas, the Italian activist and theorist Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and the Russian philosopher and linguist Mikhail Bakhtin. Michael Halliday’s functional grammar has been another important influence. Critical sociolinguists such as Robert Hodge and Günther Kress have stressed the role of power in producing linguistic form and difference.

Despite the similarities in perspective, there are notable differences when it comes to the actual analyses. Some critical analysts focus on the cogni- tive basis of representations, for example, the sociocognitive processes underlying racist discourse (Teun van Dijk). Others (such as Norman Fairclough) are particularly interested in the relationship between different levels of social practices constituting a social order (such as of education in a particular country) and its related order of discourse (marginal and dominant ways of “making meaning,” for example, about what counts as proper education).

Critical discourse analysts have an interest in the subtle properties and workings of power. The concept of hegemony is often used to capture those aspects of power that sustain practices of domi- nance (over women, over the poor) with seeming consent of those oppressed. These forms of domi- nance are considered “jointly constructed” rather than simply imposed. Dominant discourses play a crucial role in sustaining such practices. Critical discourse analysts are not only interested in reveal- ing the mediating role of discourse but also make a plea for political engagement—finding points of entry to support marginalized groups in society.

A more recently evolved branch of discourse analysis is Foucauldian discourse analysis. It shares the critically engaged focus of critical discourse analysis but presents itself as more directly informed by the work of Michel Foucault. In line with Foucault’s notion of discourse, it highlights the productive side of language in that it establishes groups, categories, and subjects rather than laying stress on how language conveys meaning. Perhaps confusingly, Foucauldian discourse analysis often departs from the kind of genealogical studies as Foucault propagated them. While some studies make use of historical texts, most seem to draw on

interview materials. The concept of interpretative repertoire is often deployed as a starting point for analysis. It is doubtful whether Foucault would have pursued such analyses himself, since it seems to put active meaning construction by subjects at the center of analysis. Foucauldian discourse ana- lysts stress that it is not methodological rigor per se that makes up for the quality of the analysis. Corresponding with Foucault’s focus on power– knowledge networks, the notion of an objective truth is eschewed in favor of sustained reflexivity about one’s own production of “truth” or theory.

Discursive Psychology

Derek Edwards and Jonathan Potter are the founders of what is now called discursive psychol- ogy. Discursive psychology developed out of the strand of discourse analytic repertoire research as it was developed by Gilbert and Mulkay and applied to social psychology by Potter and Wetherell. In its current form, it is very much akin to conversation analytic research. Like conversa- tion analysts, discursive psychologists are inter- ested in close empirical investigation of naturally occurring data. They work from detailed tran- scripts of audio or video recordings derived from a variety of “natural” settings, such as talk between peers, counseling sessions, or mealtime conversa- tions. Discursive psychology examines how psy- chological issues are made relevant in everyday interactions. The question of what psychology comprises is, however, approached from partici- pants’ so-called emic point of view. How are atti- tudes, emotions, scripts, and the like made available, and how are they ascribed and resisted by people themselves, as part of the social actions performed in and through talk? Limited memories may, for instance, account for a forgotten action, while gus- tatory “mmms” may enhance the genuineness of food pleasure. The action-oriented approach to language marks a shift away from cognitivist tradi- tions in psychology that treat mental states as the source or cause of what is being said.

For discursive psychologists, as for conversation analysts, it is action in sequence rather than the isolated sentence or utterance that is the basic unit of analysis. Many actions are accomplished in pairs, such as question–answer and invitation–acceptance pairs. The normative character of these paired

316 Discourse Theory and Analysis

actions enables people to make sense of deviations. Precisely because they have a common expectation that questions are followed by answers, they can make inferences about the nature of the deviation and the action that it accomplishes. These publicly displayed and continuously updated understand- ings are available, not only for conversationalists, but also for analysts, who use them as an important proof procedure by which they can check their own interpretations.

Recently, Edwards and Potter have distinguished three major strands in discursive psychology. The first strand focuses on reformulations of traditional psychological topics such as attitude, motives, memory, and scripts, into discourse prac- tices. Someone who expresses a complaint is at risk of being treated as a dispositional moaner. Humor can be used to negotiate the motive of the com- plainer by showing that he or she is not disposed to make too much of it. The second strand involves studies of how psychological terms are deployed in everyday talk (intent, remember, see, know, for example). When people display uncertainty about something they are saying (“What is it I was read- ing somewhere?”), the statement may not simply claim that one has not quite remembered but may also display disinterestedness precisely at a point where it could be an issue (“She would say that, wouldn’t she?”). A third line of research focuses on psychology-in-interaction as it appears in less overt ways. Attributions of agency and intent and the corresponding accusations of stake and interest are, for example, typically performed not by explicit blame but through apparently straightfor- ward, factual descriptions.

Bones of Contention in Contemporary Discourse Analysis

There have been vibrant debates about virtually all basic assumptions in discourse theory and analy- sis. An ongoing discussion is the relationship between discursive practices and the “world-out- there.” Are they intricately bound up with each other, or does the material world deserve a more detached or even autonomous position? Another notable discussion concerns the notion of context: Must a discourse analysis include an analysis of cultural and historical resources, or should a proper study be grounded in how these resources

are actually used in the interaction (see for exam- ple the debates between Emanuel Schegloff, Margaret Wetherell, and Michael Billig). Often interwoven is the issue of how far analysts should take into account the detail of talk-in-interaction (for example, transcribed hesitations, timed pauses, and intonation). Can we find everything in the talk as long as we look closely enough, or do we need to take a broader perspective and necessarily leave out some of the particulars?

Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter explored the role of mental concepts in the analysis of inter- action. The status of cognition is a gray zone of disagreement between conversation analysts and discursive psychologists and is a clear bone of con- tention in the debate between the latter and cogni- tive (social) psychologists. Is cognition first and foremost a topic and interactional resource for participants themselves, or does it count as an empirically grounded explanation for why people say the things they do? Another area of dispute focuses on the critical potential of the various dis- course approaches: Does political engagement need to be an explicit part of one’s research pro- gram in order to be effective, or does such an “imposed” critical stance obscure the relevance of participants’ own orientations and thus become counterproductive? Related to the issue of political involvement is the status of the analyst’s observa- tions. While the majority of discourse analysts in the social sciences have adopted the conceptualiza- tion of discourse as oriented to action rather than merely conveying truth, still open to discussion is to what extent and how this should apply to the analyst himself or herself. How detached or self- reflexive can or need one be?

Despite the differences in opinion and approach, the lively debates in journals such as Discourse Studies, Discourse & Society, and more recently Discourse & Communication and the growing applications of discourse analysis in a variety of disciplines prove discourse theory and analysis to be a dynamic and innovative field of research.

Hedwig te Molder

See also Accounts and Account Giving; Action- Implicative Discourse Analysis; Conversation Analysis; Critical Discourse Analysis; Ethnomethodology; Language and Communication; Poststructuralism; Semiotics and Semiology

317Documentary Film Theories

Further Readings

Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. J., & Radley, A. R. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.

Phillips, L. J., & Jørgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post- structuralism in dialogue, Discourse and Society, 9, 387–412.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage.

Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.

DOCUMENTARY FILM THEORIES

Documentary film theories attempt to accomplish several goals, which include defining the genre of documentary film, articulating its components, and describing its effects and use in society. This entry explores the various definitions of documen- tary film, the evolving set of documentary filmic components and practices, and how the defini- tions and construction of documentary films inform documentary film theories. These issues are particularly relevant for the field of communi- cation and rhetoric because most documentary films engage in various forms of persuasion.

Definitions of Documentary

The term documentary was coined in 1926 by British filmmaker John Grierson in his review of Robert Flaherty’s film Moana. Grierson described

the film as visually capturing the daily life of young Polynesians. In the 1930s, Grierson became a documentary filmmaker and producer, and he expanded his definition of documentary film to the “creative treatment of actuality,” which was largely uncontested until the early 1960s. Erik Barnouw, who wrote one of the most popular books on documentary film history, Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film, defines this genre by the films’ place in history and societal use. Barnouw distinguishes documentaries from earlier nonfic- tion films (which were known as travelogues) by their incorporation of a narrative structure and use of multiple close-ups. The use of narrative and close-ups came directly from the influence of fic- tion film, and one result of their use was a clearer manifestation of the filmmaker’s point of view.

One of the tensions that concerns definitions and theories of documentary film is grounded in claims of neutral representation. The film Nanook of the North, directed by Robert Flaherty, is gener- ally regarded as one of the first documentaries even though the film is critiqued for its romanti- cized portrayal of Inuit life and its use of historic recreations. Flaherty’s first attempt to depict Inuit life resembled a travelogue (with which he was not happy), and it was destroyed in a fire. He returned to northern Canada determined to create an empa- thetic depiction of the rapidly disappearing Inuit culture. He decided to focus the film on the life of Nanook and his family in order to more fully engage audiences with their plight and daily strug- gle for existence. Despite the film’s questionable depictions of authentic Inuit life (many scenes were staged), Nanook of the North retains its position in documentary film history.

Documentary Practices

Many early documentary film practitioners were primarily interested in making their films persuasive, and they incorporated additional narrative components into their films. Robert Flaherty (father of British documentary), John Grierson (father of American documentary), Dziga Vertov (father of Soviet experimental documen- tary): all were attracted to what we have come to recognize as a documentary form; however, there was not the concomitant understanding that their films were to be “objective.” A prominent critic of

318 Documentary Film Theories

voice-over narration was Leni Riefenstahl, the director of Triumph of Will, who believed that her images were more persuasive without an omni- scient narrator telling the audience how to inter- pret her films’ images. Although early documentaries clearly embraced nonneutral representation, there was criticism of this approach. Luis Buñuel’s 1932 film, Land Without Bread, illustrated the inherent biases in the documentary film form by clearly staging scenes and having the film’s narrator criti- cize the film’s characters.

The tension between persuasion and authentic neutral representation did not stop several docu- mentary practitioners from using the form for social action. During the 1930s, John Grierson used documentaries to instigate British govern- ment economic reforms for the poor. In the 1930s and 1940s, governments around the world used documentary films to inspire their citizenry to sup- port their country’s wartime goals. In 1948, Standard Oil of New Jersey hired Robert Flaherty to make the documentary Louisiana Story, which would ease fears of oil exploration in the Louisiana bayous. In 1988, Errol Morris’s film Thin Blue Line played a key role in overturning the murder conviction of an innocent man. In the early 2000s, community activists used the making of a docu- mentary film as a community-organizing tool and as part of a civil disobedience action. The use of documentary film by individuals, governments, and businesses to influence public opinion has been a part of the documentary tradition.

Documentary Components

The filmic component that has been part of the documentary form from the beginning, but still raises issues regarding its role in documentary film, is historic recreation. One of the most famous inci- dents of historic recreation in a documentary film occurred during the making of Nanook of the North. Director Robert Flaherty instructed Nanook and his fellow Inuit to use harpoons to capture a walrus although these men were using rifles by that time. The creation of this scene reportedly endangered the lives of the men, but Flaherty insisted on recreating the scene in order to depict a former way of Inuit life. Some documentarists and critics shun this particular filmic component, claiming its inappropriateness for documentary,

while others view the historic recreation as just another filmic device available to tell a story, one that is necessary if no actual film footage of the event exists.

Additional elements from fiction film that appear in documentaries include voice-over narration, graphics, animation, scripts, actors, music, and B roll (images that illustrate a speaker’s point). From the 1930s through the 1950s, governments and corporations around the world rapidly adopted these components into documentary filmmaking, which allowed their critics to label some of this output as propagandistic. One reaction to this evo- lution of the documentary film form came in the early 1960s with the practitioners of cinema verité. These filmmakers and theorists sought to make the documentary form free of the filmmakers’ point of view by eschewing fiction film elements and using only location sound and unstructured filming (e.g., only location sound, no interviews, no voice-over narration, and no scripting of any form). This move to include objectivity in the definition of documen- tary film forced documentary film theorists to more carefully examine the relationship between docu- mentary film and its representation of reality.

Evolving Theories

Due to the historic belief in a camera’s ability to authentically record reality, most early documen- tary theories included an assumption that docu- mentary film could record reality with no imprint of human interpretation. This belief in the camera as able to record the truth was challenged in the late 1960s and early 1970s with poststructuralist theories that observed how the camera and film- making were part of a system of cultural values and beliefs. During this time, many film theorists employed the literary theory of semiotics in their film analyses. Semiotics is a meaning-centered the- ory of language in which the critic examines lan- guage as symbols. In semiotic theory, language is analyzed as a set of symbols in which the symbols themselves contain their own meanings. According to semiotic theory, meaning is the point between the actual object in the world and the language or symbol that describes the object. The study of lan- guage as a system of symbols enables the critic to discover the sets of meanings each culture develops in its understandings of the world and the world’s

319Documentary Film Theories

social relationships. Semioticians used the work of linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who described this process as analyzing signs, and he assigned the term signifier to the language (or symbol) used to describe the signified, which is the actual image we see in our minds of the described object. Previous approaches to documentary film theory assumed a denotative relationship between the subject and the filmed image. This relationship came under scru- tiny with a new generation of documentary film theorists influenced by semiotics.

The recognition that the camera and all filmic choices are part of a cultural sign system chal- lenged the view of documentary films as objective or representing authentic reality. Roland Barthes wrote in Image, Music, and Text of the multitude of interpretations in the cultural signs themselves. Scholars of postmodernism, who examine the relationships between representation and reality, observed that reality does not exist outside the individual. With these particular philosophical issues in mind, documentary film’s use of cine- matic realism came under pressure. Critical issues arose concerning whose reality was in fact being depicted. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the study of documentary film became highly interdis- ciplinary as theorists used Marxism, feminism, and rhetoric to analyze the implications of docu- mentary’s use of cinematic realism. Marxist theo- rists questioned which events were covered in documentary films and whether their representa- tions empowered the working classes with revolu- tionary insights into their oppressive conditions. Feminist documentary theorists critiqued the doc- umentary form as primarily representing a male- centered view that perpetuated not only patriarchy but also a mainstream bourgeois reality.

Contemporary documentary theorist Bill Nichols incorporates rhetorical theories in his approach to analyzing the documentary. In par- ticular, he uses a neo-Aristotelian model to analyze a documentary’s persuasive arguments. In addition to using the canons of invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery as a theoretical approach to understanding a documentary’s per- suasive qualities, Nichols developed six categories of documentary film that do not question the films’ ability to record authentic representations but instead focus on how different styles of docu- mentary films tell their stories. Nichols’s categories

include poetic (abstract films using pieces of filmed actuality), expository (the most common form, similar to an expository essay), observational (similar to cinema verité), participatory (the film- maker on camera interviewing or as part of the story), reflexive (challenges documentary format and is more abstract), and performative (emphasis on subjective observations).

Audience and Ethics

In addition to the analysis of the films as texts, documentary film theorists began to incorporate the role of the audience, the filmmakers’ ethics, and the filmmakers’ identity in their theorization. Documentary film theorist Brian Winston consid- ers audience reception as key to defining the docu- mentary as well as essential for evaluating any documentary film’s truth claims. He observes that the various forms of documentary have no inher- ent claim to representing authenticity or the truth but that it is up to the audience to evaluate the documentary filmmakers’ relationship to the sub- ject and the filmmakers’ methodological choices in that representation. Most documentary film theo- rists also include the role of the filmmaker’s ethics in defining and analyzing documentary film. Erik Barnouw notes the problems in the 1920s, when anthropological documentary filmmakers of for- eign cultures staged unflattering depictions of their subjects. Several years after the philosophical impact of cinema verité, one of its foremost U.S. practitioners, Frederick Wiseman, acknowledged the large role that his point of view played in his topic and editing choices. Considering the popu- larity of Michael Moore and other documentarists who insert themselves into their films, documen- tary theorist Garnet C. Butchart emphasizes how the entire truth claim of documentaries rests on the filmmakers’ ethics in making their films. Documentary theorist Michael Renov views the autobiographical documentary film as the evolu- tion of the documentary form and argues that it has powerful possibilities of oppositional represen- tation. For Renov, theorizing the filmmaker’s posi- tionality, or place, in terms of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation is the subject of many con- temporary documentaries.

The combination of audience expectations, filmic components, the filmmaker’s ethics, and the

320 Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad

use of documentary films to promote social goals have all come to both define the genre and inform documentary film theories. For some documentary theorists, the definition of a documentary film is tied to neutral representation and the claim that a documentary film can make objective truth claims. For other documentary theorists, the influence of the filmmaker, the audience, and the film’s form demand interrogation and are part of analyzing any documentary film. For these theorists, visual representation is deeply symbolic and embedded with myriad value-laden images and audio, and their role as theorists is to articulate these values and evaluate their persuasiveness.

Teresa Bergman

See also Feminist Communication Theories; Film Theories; Marxist Theory; Media and Mass Communication Theories; Postmodern Theory; Poststructuralism; Semiotics and Semiology

Further Readings

Barnouw, E. (1993). Documentary: A history of the non- fiction film. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barthes, R. (1997). Image, music, text. New York: Hill and Wang.

Benson, T. W., & Snee, B. J. (2008). The rhetoric of the new political documentary. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Butchart, G. C. (2006). On ethics and documentary. Communication Theory, 16, 427–452.

Gaines, J., & Renov M. (Eds.). (1999). Collecting visible evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Renov, M. (2004). The subject of documentary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Winston, B. (1995). Claiming the real. British Film Institute: BFI Publishing.

DRAMATISM AND DRAMATISTIC PENTAD

Dramatism, or dramaturgy, is an approach taken to understand the uses of symbols in the social world. This approach is important to

communication theory because a primary use of symbols occurs through language. Such a focus on the symbolic uses of language to influence is inher- ently rhetorical. In addition, dramatism seeks to understand the human world as a symbolic world of drama in which language is a strategic, moti- vated response to specific situations. As such, language is viewed as a mode of symbolic action rather than a repository of knowledge, and the use of language or other symbols to induce coopera- tion among human beings is the focus of investiga- tion. To develop the concept of dramatism further, this entry will look at the contributors to and key assumptions of dramatism and its associated method, the dramatistic pentad.

Introduced by literary theorist Kenneth Burke in the early 1950s, dramatism has penetrated many disciplines, including political science, sociology, literary criticism, rhetoric, organizational commu- nication, and interpersonal communication. Burke’s students have applied the concept of dra- matism in philosophy (Susan Sontag), sociology (Hugh Dalziel Duncan), political science (Doris Graber), and interpersonal communication (Erving Goffman). Still others in many additional disci- plines have been influenced by dramatism, includ- ing Harold Bloom, Stanley Cavell, Clifford Geertz, Rene Girard, Frederic Jameson, Geoffrey Hartman, and Edward Said. Dramatism continues to develop as an aid to understanding the complexity of human symbol use.

Several assumptions undergird dramatism, the most important of which is the understanding of human beings as symbol-using animals. Humans create symbols (language is the most obvious example of a human symbol system), respond to symbols, and understand their circumstances through symbols. It is by way of symbols that humans have the unique ability to conceive of the negative or the absence of something. Symbols function to create and sustain hierarchies of power and identification among dissimilar groups. Symbols also allow for incongruities, such as creat- ing the conditions for conflict while simultane- ously unifying individuals to resist conflict.

Another assumption is that human interaction can be approached as a drama, hence the name dramatism. For Burke, the relationship between life and theater is literal rather than metaphori- cal. Humans enact real roles on live stages as

321Dramatism and Dramatistic Pentad

they attempt to impact others. These dramas guide the ways that individuals, groups, and organizations conduct their behaviors. Dramatism also acknowledges that human beings act rather than move. The distinction between action and motion is that human beings make choices to act, often through symbols, while animals, plants, and other physical objects simply engage in motion. This human choice to act is the basis of all human motivation. Thus, symbols become sites for discovering motivation.

Finally, dramatism suggests that symbols form a grid or screen through which the world is viewed. Such terministic screens select or favor some reali- ties and deflect others; doctors arriving at the scene of a car accident will look first for injuries because of the medical terministic screen operating for them; lawyers, while equally concerned with injury, will also note possible factors of blame because of the terministic screen implicit in their training. The terministic screens through which we apprehend our worlds have larger implications as well; they bristle with embedded values that, in turn, form belief systems or ideologies. These ideologies filter our understanding of others, our communication to them, as well as our choices of action.

The dramatistic pentad is the key model used by critics to analyze human use of symbols in com- munication. The pentad is made up of five ele- ments or terms (hence the name pentad): act, or what was or will be done; scene, or the context of the act that answers the questions of where and when the act occurred; agent, or who performed the act; agency, or the way the act was performed; and purpose, or the goal of the act. These five terms answer the what, where, who, how, and why of human communication. The act serves a pivotal place in the pentad because human society is fun- damentally dramatic or driven by action. Later, Burke suggested that incipient act, or the first steps toward the act, can substitute for the act in pen- tadic analysis. The incipient act recognizes the vital connection between thought and behavior. He also later added a sixth term, attitude, to further clarify the manner in which the agent approached the doing of the act.

While all human use of symbols in communica- tion shares the same elements or terms, the propor- tion of those terms varies. Often, pairs of terms, or ratios, surface to dominate communication. For

example, when communication focuses on what occurred and who performed the action, a ratio of agent–act dominates, or surfaces. For example, in a courtroom, a prosecuting attorney might argue that the accused did indeed unlawfully enter a house—an agent–act ratio. The defense attorney might prefer to make use of a scene–agent ratio instead, arguing that the accused came on a house with the door broken in and entered to see if there was a problem; in this case, scene dominates the act.

Application of the dramatistic pentad also helps to identify the ideology or worldview from which the communicator constructs the message. Generally, one term of the pentad dominates the communica- tion, providing an ideology that accompanies it. If the act is the central term of the communication, then the form of the communication is realism. In such communication, active language such as verbs would dominate. On the other hand, if the central term is the scene or the setting for the action, we are urged to view the drama as domi- nated by the material situation, or materialism. If the agent, or the actor in the drama, is featured, then idealism is the corresponding orientation. Agency and purpose both locate the importance of the drama in how action is accomplished. Agency, or the way the act is performed, suggests pragma- tism, while purpose, or goal, makes mysticism its compulsive force because the individual is less important than the final objective. For each of these central terms, a corresponding philosophical orientation arises, and when the term dominates the communication, its philosophical orientation forms the point of embarkation.

Burke used the illustration of the human hand to explain the working of the pentad. Each finger becomes a separate term of the pentad, distinct in its form. However, the palm of the hand unifies the fingers so that even though the fingers are separate, they are also united. Through the pen- tad, human actions are viewed from five interre- lated points of motivation that are overlapping. By identifying the separate terms of the pentad, the critic can ultimately understand their common connection.

Kathleen M. German

See also Ideological Rhetoric; Ideology; Meaning Theories; Rhetorical Theory; Symbolic Interactionism

322 Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group Cognition and Social Influence

Further Readings

Burke, K. D. (1945). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, K. D. (1976). Dramatism. In J. E. Combs & M. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Drama in life: The uses of communication in society (pp. 7–17). New York: Hastings House.

Duncan, H. D. (1962). Communication and social order. London: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Center.

Graber, D. (1976). Verbal behavior and politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Ling, D. A. (1970). A pentadic analysis of Senator Edward Kennedy’s address to the people of Massachusetts, July 25, 1969. Central States Speech Journal, 21, 80–86.

DUAL-LEVEL CONNECTIONIST MODELS OF GROUP COGNITION AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Dual-level connectionist models (DLCMs) of group communication arose from two very differ- ent strains of work in individual psychology—the activation of links in semantic memory and paral- lel processing models of pattern recognition and learning. Unlike their psychological roots, how- ever, DLCMs integrate individual psychological concepts with group communication. They explain how cognitive states (beliefs, feelings, etc.) are changed by communication among group mem- bers. These changes result in changes in the con- tent of communication events, which then influence patterns of group communication. In turn the cog- nitive states of group members may be changed, and so on. DLCMs go beyond important dual- level theories of influence such as Richard Petty and John Cacioppo’s elaboration likelihood the- ory and Shelly Chaiken’s heuristic processing model, which focus primarily on mental pro- cesses rather than on the integration of mental processing and temporally embedded social pro- cesses. DLCMs have been applied broadly by Dean Hewes to group emotional dynamics, group phase development, and argumentation and influence in

groups. But to understand how DLCMs accom- plish this, we need to examine them in detail, sketching their elements and processes and dis- cussing their promise.

Elements and Processes

Regardless of the specific applications, DLCMs contain a common set of components: nodes, links, dynamic processes, and modules. Nodes are perceived communication events (inputs), mental states associated with them (processing nodes such as beliefs, policies, and emotions), and communi- cation outputs connected to mental states (argu- ments, emotional statements, etc.). For example, in a DLCM theory of argumentation and influence in groups, input nodes might be policy-relevant argu- ments from other group members as perceived by a particular member, the set of policy options rel- evant to those (processing nodes), and a set of arguments produced by that group member and transmitted to the other group members, and so on for all group members. These nodes are connected to each other, although not fully, and are the potential sites of change, both communicative and mental. Thus, DLCMs are connectionist because of the connections between the nodes and dual- level since change can occur in both the communi- cative and cognitive levels.

Connections between nodes, or links, have constraints, valences, and activation weights. Constraints determine the connections between types of nodes. For instance, in the example above, links run (a) from perceived messages (inputs) to policy options, (b) among policy options (process- ing nodes), (c) from policy options to generated arguments, and (d) from members’ arguments to other members’ received messages. In a DLCM group argument theory, (a), (c), and (d) are unidi- rectional flowing forward as described above. Unidirectional links, for example, can run from perceived messages to mental states but not the reverse. Thus, a theoretical constraint is placed on types of links.

Valences specify the negative or positive impli- cations of the links between nodes. For example, a negatively valenced link between a mental state, say an emotion, and an emotional message indicates that the more an emotion is experi- enced, the less likely it is to be expressed—feeling

323Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group Cognition and Social Influence

anger leads to the repression of expressed anger. A positively valenced link indicates the reverse. Moreover, each link has an activation weight that indexes the strength of a link. Stronger argu- ments for a policy option have larger activation weights for links to policy options than do weaker arguments.

DLCMs possess dynamic processes that explain how the activation weights can be changed. The continued reception of perceived messages with a positive valance can strengthen those links to thinking processes (processing nodes). In other words, if the links are positive, the more frequently a group member receives a perceived message, the stronger the link between that message and pro- cessing node, and the more readily the group mem- ber calls the relevant processing node to mind. This, in turn, influences the production of mes- sages because frequently activated processing nodes strengthen the link between them and the pro- duced message, again assuming these links are positive. For example, in a DLCM theory of group development, there might exist a positive link between some functional statement made by other members of a group (say, “defining the problem”) and the receiver thinking about that function. A subsequent functional statement of the same type will move the increment of the activation weight for that link upward. This makes the person more inclined to think about that function over time as functional messages of that type recur. Mixed functional messages (positively valenced links) from other group members, on the other hand, lead to the leveling of weights across nodes for individual members, which, in turn, would lead to more confused thinking about functions and mixed expression of those functions to others. Of course, if the weights are negatively valenced, the weights build up negatively through repeated activation and tend to inhibit the activation of those nodes subsequently.

These dynamic processes are the heart of the DLCMs. They make it possible to track both com- munication and psychological processes over time. For example, in the study of policy decision mak- ing, they can produce increasing differentiation, integration, vacillation, or ambivalence among policy options both within and between individu- als, depending on the input messages and structure of links between and among the nodes. They can

also predict both steady movement toward a deci- sion and abrupt shifts in group preferences, as well as tendencies toward self-organization or chaos.

Modules, the fourth set of elements, are also dynamic mechanisms that, while essential to the complete development of DLCMs, are conceptual- ized as processes that are distinct from the elements discussed so far. Four modules are posited—the interpretive, strategy production, and accessibility modules, as well as the turn-taking management device. The turn-taking management device regu- lates turn exchanges among the group members. The accessibility module describes when interac- tions among people do not occur, allowing for predictions of group behavior across multiple meetings, and effects of subgroup meetings and consultation that occur between meetings. Interpretive modules bridge the gap between the meaning of a message for the sender and the mean- ing given it by its recipient. The strategy production modules serve to edit messages considered by send- ers before transmission based on their perceived appropriateness, effectiveness, and timeliness.

Conclusions

DLCMs are complex theories of group interaction necessary to explain the integration of individual cognition of all group members and ongoing com- munication, something beyond the scope of any current theory of group communication. DLCMs have heuristic value because they apply to a range of group phenomena. A DLCM theory of group development explains current data on group phases, presents an account of intrusions in phase development that differs from explanations by Marshall Scott Poole and Joel Doelger and Poole and Carolyn Baldwin, and does so by integrating individual cognitive processes and sequential pat- terns of communication where these theories do not. A DLCM theory of emotional dynamics fills a gap in available theorizing since virtually all treat- ments of emotion in groups address individual states rather than the emotional dynamics of those states among group members. A DLCM theory of group argument and social influence integrates separate explanations based on cognitive processes with those primarily anchored in communication processes such as that of Marshall Scott Poole,

324 Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group Cognition and Social Influence

David Seibold, and Robert McPhee, to the benefit of both. Thus, the DLCM framework of group communication has considerable promise, though more theoretical and empirical work is needed.

Recently, a number of critics have evaluated this framework, highlighting both its potential and its gaps in coverage. The reviews have been positive but do leave some questions for further develop- ment. For example, the dynamic processes in such models need further clarification. Concerns have been raised about the testability of these models. An important question deals with the long-term effects of messages received during the initial stages of group discussion compared to those received later. Some of these objections have been addressed while others need further clarification. All these critiques have proven useful for the sub- sequent advancement of the DLCM framework or its various instantiations.

DLCMs provide a handle on the most serious gap in the study of group communication. We have been driven to date by purely psychological theo- ries on one hand and those purely sociological on the other. As a field standing between these two monoliths, our task is to find the connection between them through the communication pro- cesses connecting them. Even if the DLCMs prove to be incapable of serving this function, they iden- tify the problems and point the way to those frameworks that will.

Dean E. Hewes

See also Cognitive Theories; Elaboration Likelihood Theory; Group Communication Theories; Heuristic- Systematic Model

Further Readings

Anderson, J. (1973). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.

Arrow, H., McGrath, J., & Berdahl, J. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonito, J., & Sanders, R. (in press). A different approach to answering a good question: A response to Hewes’s models of communication effects on small group outcomes. Human Communication Research.

Chaiken, S. (1980). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olsen, & C. P. Herman (Eds.),

Social influence: The Ontario symposium: Vol. 5 (pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gouran, D. (in press). A response to Hewes’s “The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis.” Human Communication Research.

Hewes, D. (1986). A socio-egocentric model of group decision making. In R. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (1st ed., pp. 265–291). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hewes, D. (1996). Small group communication may not influence group decision making: An amplification of the socio-egocentric model. In R. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 179–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hewes, D. (in press). Elaborations on the socio-egocentric and dual-level connectionist models of group interaction processes. Human Communication Research.

Hewes, D. (in press). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research.

McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D., & Hilton, G. (1988). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Vol. 1 (pp. 3–44). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Meyers, R., & Seibold, D. (in press). Making foundational assumptions transparent: Framing the discussion about group communication and influence. Human Communication Research.

Pavitt, C. (in press). A sympathetic reaction to the SM and DLCM as group communication theories. Human Communication Research.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. R. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Poole, M. S., & Baldwin, C. (1996). Developmental processes in group decision making. In R. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 215–241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Poole, M. S., & Doelger, J. (1986). Developmental processes in group decision making. In R. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (1st ed., pp. 35–61). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Poole, M. S., Seibold, D., & McPhee, R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions. Communication Monographs, 49, 1–19.

325Dyadic Power Theory

DYADIC POWER THEORY

First proposed by Boyd Rollins and Stephen Bahr in 1976 and later revised by Norah Dunbar, dyadic power theory (DPT) emphasizes the rela- tive perceived power of partners in a relation- ship. From a social–psychological perspective, power is generally defined as the capacity to pro- duce intended effects and, in particular, the abil- ity to influence the behavior of another person even in the face of resistance. Dunbar asserts that power is an integral part of any relationship but is especially important in close romantic relation- ships because it determines how the partners relate to each other and how decisions are made. The theory assumes that perceptions of legiti- mate authority to make decisions and to exert control over a variety of resources increase indi- viduals’ perceptions of their own power com- pared with that of their partner. Perceptions of power, in turn, increase the likelihood of using dominance as a way to control the interaction through a mechanism Rollins and Bahr call con- trol attempts but what Dunbar often refers to as dominance.

Rollins and Bahr originally argued for a linear relationship between dominance and power, stat- ing that an increase in a spouse’s perception of power in a marriage role relative to that of the partner will produce an increase in attempts to control her or his spouse in the role. Furthermore, they argued that the effectiveness of the control attempts is influenced by the relative power per- ceived by the recipient such that the greater the relative power of the initiator, the more likely the control attempts will result in compliance. From this perspective, the more powerful someone is, the more dominance he or she will exert through con- trol attempts, and the more his or her partner will comply with his or her requests.

However, recent tests of DPT by Dunbar have not supported Rollins and Bahr’s linear proposi- tion but have indicated that the relationship between perceived relative power and manifest dominance is curvilinear, such that partners who perceive their relative power difference as extremely high will use fewer control attempts than partners who perceive their relative power difference as low. This is because high-power individuals do not

need to make a large number of control attempts over low-power individuals; by virtue of their latent power, they can maintain control without dominant behaviors. On the other hand, in line with Michael Roloff and Denise Cloven’s research that suggests a lack of power creates a chilling effect in conflict situations, low-power individuals are unlikely to express grievances to high-power individuals if they fear that retaliation, violence, or termination of the relationship will result from their control attempt. For example, a battered wife may not openly disagree with her husband, or a subordinate may lie to his or her superior at work for fear of reprisal.

The process of displaying verbal and nonverbal dominance during interaction is central to DPT, but the outcomes of such displays must be exam- ined as well. The model proposed by Rollins and Bahr ends with one partner’s compliance, or the outcome of the conflict interaction, but Dunbar extended it to examine the outcomes of the inter- action for the health of the relationship and satis- faction with the interaction itself. In ongoing relationships, satisfaction is an especially impor- tant outcome to examine because dissatisfaction can “erode” the relationship and lead to distress if left unchecked. For example, in the context of marriages, many researchers have found power equality to be a large determinant of marital satisfaction.

While power equality can enhance satisfaction, the perception of a loss of power can be particu- larly destructive to relational or interactional satis- faction. Perceived imbalance in the resources of exchange, inequity, and unequal distribution of power are often cited as sources of conflict and reasons for relational dissatisfaction. Powerlessness also should have an influence on an individual’s satisfaction within a particular interaction, even one with a total stranger.

Although Rollins and Bahr’s theory was origi- nally conceived as a model of marital power, DPT’s scope should not be limited to marriage. It has the potential to be applied to friendships, familial relationships, dating relationships, work relationships, and any other setting in which inter- actants have an established history and expect to have continued interaction in the future.

Norah E. Dunbar

326 Dyadic Power Theory

See also Interpersonal Communication Theories; Power, Interpersonal; Relational Communication Theory

Further Readings

Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 450–507). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4(3 & 4), 235–248.

Dunbar, N. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 207–233.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Huston, T. (1983). Power. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 169–219). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 619–627.

Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The reluctance to speak one’s mind. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

DYNAMIC MEMORY MODEL

See Cognitive Theories

327

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORKGROUP COMMUNICATION THEORY

The effective intercultural workgroup communica- tion theory (IWCT), developed by John Oetzel in 1995, explains how cultural variability and diver- sity influence communication processes and the subsequent outcomes that occur in workgroups. This theory addresses limitations in explaining workgroup communication in culturally diverse groups and has been refined over the past 10 years as more complex understandings of how culture influences communication have been identified.

The theory was developed from the literature attempting to identify models of effective work- groups. The predominant models of workgroup effectiveness ignore culture and emphasize work or task communication only. These models privilege one particular view of how groups should work by emphasizing work outcomes over relational out- comes. The IWCT recognizes that group processes and outcomes include both task and relational aspects. The literature on cultural variability pro- vides a strong theoretical explanation as to why both task and relational aspects are important in effective workgroups. Hence, IWCI merges these two different literatures in providing a practical theory of workgroup communication. This entry examines the three key components of the theory— inputs, processes, and outcomes—and the relation- ships among these concepts.

Key Concepts

The theory includes three broad inputs in cultur- ally diverse workgroups: contextual factors, group composition, and cultural–individual factors. Contextual factors include the following: (a) a his- tory of unresolved conflict among cultural or eth- nic groups (e.g., the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians); (b) in-group–out-group balance (i.e., the number of group members from each cultural group); (c) cooperative versus competitive tasks (i.e., does the task require collaboration among members or encourage members to work for their own interests?); and (d) status differences among members (e.g., boss and employee). Essentially, each of these four factors is a condition that helps or hinders the creation of a common identity in a culturally diverse workgroup. Group composition is the degree of cultural diversity (or similarity) in the group and ranges from homogeneous to heterogeneous. Cultural–individual factors are the values and identities that individual group mem- bers have. The primary cultural value difference considered is variability of individualism and col- lectivism. Individualism is a social pattern that consists of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives and who give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others, while collectivism is a social pattern con- sisting of closely linked individuals who see them- selves as part of one or more collectives (family, coworkers, tribe, nation) and are willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals.

328 Effective Intercultural Workgroup Communication Theory

Processes refer to the communication among members of a workgroup. The theory distinguishes between effective and ineffective communication. Effective communication consists of four work- group behaviors: equal participation, consensus decision making, cooperative conflict, and respect- ful communication. These four behaviors are cul- turally appropriate in that they relate to both task and relational aspects. Outcomes are the work output of the group and/or the relationships of the members and include such factors as decisions, solutions, creative ideas, satisfaction of members, and cohesion among members. Outcomes are cat- egorized as either task (e.g., decision, solutions, and plans) or relational (e.g., satisfaction and cohesion).

Relationships Among Concepts

The theory has a strong foundation in system the- ory. From this foundation, IWCT provides a series of general assumptions and specific propositions. The general assumptions of the theory are three- fold. First, the context of the group frames the relationships among inputs, processes, and out- puts. Second, within a particular context, the inputs influence the communication processes of a group; subsequently the communication processes impact the outcomes of the group. Third, the pro- cesses and outcomes serve as feedback for context and input.

IWCT has nine propositions that explain these general assumptions within intercultural work- groups. For the input–process relationship, the propositions specify the inputs that lead to effec- tive or ineffective communication in culturally diverse workgroups. Specifically, the theory pro- poses the following: (1) the more negative con- textual factors that a culturally diverse group faces, the less likely the group will experience effective communication; (2) the more culturally heterogeneous a group, the less likely it will expe- rience effective communication; (3) the more individualistic (or independent) a culturally diverse group, the more likely the group will uti- lize dominating conflict strategies; (4) the more collectivistic (or interdependent) a culturally diverse group, the more likely the group will uti- lize collaborating conflict strategies; (5) the more individualistic (or independent) individuals in a

culturally diverse group, the more likely they will take turns; (6) the more collectivist (or interde- pendent) a culturally diverse group, the more likely the group will have equal participation; and (7) the more members of a culturally diverse group have other- or mutual-face concerns, the more likely the group will have effective communication.

For the process–outcome relationship, the prop- ositions explain how communication processes relate to task and relational outcomes. Specifically, IWCT proposes the following: (8) the more a cul- turally diverse group utilizes effective communica- tion processes, the more likely the group will achieve task effectiveness; and (9) the more a cul- turally diverse group utilizes effective communica- tion processes, the more likely the group will achieve relational effectiveness.

In terms of feedback, the theory argues that the outcomes of a group reinforce individual decisions and satisfaction and may influence future work effort in the group. Further, if a culturally diverse workgroup has effective communication, it may improve the quality of intercultural relations that members have with people outside the workgroup (e.g., by encouraging them to see members of other cultural groups in a positive light).

John G. Oetzel

See also Cultural Types Theories; Functional Group Communication Theory; Group Communication Theories; Intercultural Communication Theories; System Theory

Further Readings

Oetzel, J. G. (1995). Intercultural small groups: An effective decision-making theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theories (pp. 247–270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups through individualism- collectivism and self-construal. Human Communication Research, 25, 202–224.

Oetzel, J. G. (2005). Intercultural work group communication theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 351–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

329Elaborated and Restricted Codes

ELABORATED AND RESTRICTED CODES

Codes used in communication may be character- ized according to the extent of their elaboration within a specific message or in a communicative style. A message in an elaborated code carries all information needed to understand it within the message itself. Thus, elaborated codes are rela- tively context free. Restricted codes are context bound and cannot be easily understood with- out additional information beyond that in the message. This entry describes elaborated and restricted codes, discussing the implications of the elaborated–restricted code distinction for the study of communication.

Description of Elaborated and Restricted Codes

The elaborated–restricted code distinction was proposed by Basil Bernstein in response to ques- tions concerning learning differences among chil- dren. Bernstein held that restricted codes occur where social relations are based on closely shared identifications, expectations, and assumptions, where the subculture raises “we” above “I.” Their use creates social solidarity by restricting verbal elaboration of individual experience. In a restricted code, the intentions of a speaker are verbally unelaborated. Speech is normally con- ducted rapidly and fluently, often with few articu- latory clues to the context of the message. From the viewpoint of a third-party listener who is unaware of the topic or context, the meaning gathered from a restricted-code conversation is discontinuous, condensed, and local. Meaning in a restricted code is implicit rather than verbally explicit and is carried in the how of saying more than in the what. Notions of causality, if present, are limited.

Example of an overheard conversation in a restricted code between A and B:

A: So?

B: No.

A: No?

B: Jim.

A: Jim.

B: Jim.

A: Umm.

B: Mmn.

In contrast, an elaborated code encourages the speaker to focus on the experience of others as dif- ferent from one’s own. Elaboration is required due to a gap between speaker and listener. The other is presumed to be a different person with no direct knowledge of the speaker’s phenomenology. With a restricted code, the gap is presumed to occur, not between speaker and listener, but between those who share the code and those who do not. A restricted code presumes a generalized undifferen- tiated other, while an elaborated code presumes a single differentiated other.

Example of a somewhat more elaborated code, for the same overheard conversation:

A: What happened?

B: The answer was no.

A: No? Why not?

B: Unexpectedly, Jim was there.

A: Oh no, Jim. You’re kidding.

B: Jim was there and, you know, they just can’t talk in front of him.

A: So, none of this is going to happen just because Jim showed up unexpectedly.

B: Right, it’s not going to happen.

Implications for Communication

The degree of code elaboration has been proposed as an explanatory mechanism for learning differ- ences among children. Code elaboration requires a form of perspective taking not needed when the code is restricted. A restricted-code speaker is pre- sumed to communicate primarily or exclusively with sharers of the restricted code. Speaking is easy when composing a restricted-code message since the receiver is presumed to possess prior awareness of the topic, situation, and context. These need

330 Elaboration Likelihood Theory

not be specified. Speaking is a more difficult and complex process when composing an elaborated code. An elaborated-code speaker must consider the phenomenology of the other and compare what is likely to be known with what is expressed in the message. The required but missing portion of the message, if any, may then be determined by a form of subtraction. The missing information may be composed into an acceptable message for- mat, and the formatted message information may be integrated with that contained in the restricted message. The finalized elaborated message can then be delivered to the listener.

Listening is also more difficult within an elabo- rated code. While background, situation, context, and topic are clearly specified in an ideal elabo- rated message, the listener must decode this infor- mation from the message, integrate it into the listener’s belief system, check it for internal and multiple external consistencies, and evaluate it for credibility, intended humor, and important impli- cations. In a restricted code, that information is already present in the receiver.

Intercultural Implications

In the 1950s, as educational test scores of children became widely used indicators of learning, large differences between mean test scores for Black and White children in some American schools became apparent. In searching for reasons for this disparity beyond genetics, scholars in education examined multiple possible correlated factors, including language. Black English was held by some to be a restricted code. Children learn through language, and restricted codes might lead to restricted abilities and thus restricted learning. Elaborated codes give the child more of the grounds for action and lead to thought in terms of cause, effect, and consequences. Other scholars suggested multiple flaws in this possible explana- tory mechanism. Among these are the possible ethnocentrism involved in presuming that struc- tures deemed to be logical in standard English were more than simple habitual conventions of upper-class message construction. Another is the self-fulfilling prophecy effect of teachers’ expecta- tions on children’s performance, as teachers are taught to be particularly aware of proper use of elaborated codes.

Linguistic Relativity

The possible relation of language structure to thought in the elaborated–restricted code distinc- tion has potential implications for the concept of linguistic relativity. For example, some educators believe language is the common denominator in and the core of the difficulty for disadvantaged children. Children learn their culture’s social struc- ture, according to elaborated–restricted codes the- ory, through the social structure embedded in speech. The form of a child’s speech reinforces the social structure, with the social identity becoming the child’s psychological reality. Children who learn different roles due to their families’ class positions may adopt different social and intellectual orienta- tions and procedures despite equal intelligence.

Thomas M. Steinfatt

See also Communication and Language Acquisition and Development; Culture and Communication; Ethnography of Communication; Language and Communication; Linguistic Relativity; Speech Codes Theory

Further Readings

Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. American Anthropologist, 66(6), Pt. 2, 55–69.

Herrnstein , R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.

Williams, F. (1970). Language and poverty: Perspectives on a theme. Chicago: Markham.

ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD THEORY

John Cacioppo and Richard E. Petty’s elaboration likelihood theory (ELT) deals with the ways in which communicators process persuasive mes- sages. The theory describes two cognitive levels through which communicators process issue- related arguments and explains how these two routes differ. Human beings want to hold correct

331Elaboration Likelihood Theory

attitudes and opinions but are not always willing or able to evaluate the merits of the issue-related arguments presented in support of an appeal. The persuasive message recipient evaluates some mes- sages in an elaborate way and deals with others with much less critical thinking, if at all. Relevant to communication theory, ELT acknowledges and tries to explain the two different means by which the recipient evaluates issue-related content. ELT tries to predict when and how the recipient will and will not be persuaded.

Cacioppo and Petty’s use of the term elaboration refers to the extent of critical thinking that an audi- ence member gives to the persuasive message. Elaboration likelihood is the two social scientists’ metaphor for variable; it can change from little to great, depending on the way the message is evalu- ated. Cacioppo and Petty posit that a receiver of a persuasive message processes the information through one of two routes—central or peripheral—or sometimes both, toward attitude change.

The Central Route

The central route to persuasion is taken when the recipient is guided by an elaborate amount of critical thinking about what is said in the persua- sive message. In the central scenario arguments are considered carefully. The compatibility between the message and the receiver’s attitude plays a role in persuasion.

The potency of the message also plays a part. Centrally, the message recipient is identifying weak arguments and is being influenced by strong arguments. When the recipient realizes that the message is significant to his or her life, the likeli- hood of cognitively elaborating on the message increases. After this increase occurs, attitude changes will likely have a long-lasting behavioral effect.

The amount of critical thinking expended is dependent on two general factors: the receiver’s motivation and the receiver’s ability, ability mean- ing being knowledgeable about the issue involved in the persuasive message and not being distracted from the message. At least three components com- prise the motivation factor. The first is the relevance of the topic to the receiver; the more relevant the topic, the more likely the receiver will think critically about the issues involved. The second

component in the receiver’s motivation is the vari- ety of credible sources. When listening to several experts speak about the issue, the receiver will typically tend to centrally process the content. In disagreement with this point, however, Ann Bainbridge Frymier and Marjorie Keeshan Nadler, two persuasion scholars, contend that accountabil- ity is a determinant of motivation, not the variety of credible sources.

The third component in the receiver’s motiva- tion is the penchant for mulling over arguments. Frymier and Nadler point out that this factor affects motivation, but so does the degree of per- sonal responsibility and incongruent information.

The issue-related message recipient, no matter how motivated, cannot use the central route if the recipient is ignorant of the issue. For example, most college students would probably engage in a high elaboration about an informative speech on downloading music rather than a speech on Beverly Sills.

Peripheral Route

Cacioppo and Petty use the term peripheral because the receiver looks to less central consider- ations in processing the message. The decision is not based on the message itself. Peripheral cues include an appropriate guiding principle that comes to mind during the message, source credi- bility, the style and format of the message, and the mood of the receiver. Instead of the receiver’s tak- ing into consideration the argument’s strength, he or she depends on heuristics, the receiver’s use of simple decision rules, which are activated by peripheral cues during the persuasive message. Three major heuristics are credibility, likableness, and consensus. The credibility heuristic is the pro- pensity to believe sources who have credibility. The likableness heuristic is the receiver’s propen- sity to agree with individuals he or she likes. When source credibility is high, the message may be believed regardless of the arguments presented. Moreover, it is natural for a receiver to believe individuals he or she likes, or to be persuaded if there is a variety of credible sources.

An example of persuasion through the periph- eral route might involve someone who wants to purchase a cell phone but does not want to take the time to read about and shop for the various

332 Emotion and Communication

models. Such a person might take a friend’s sug- gestions for which one to buy or base a decision on a 30-second commercial on a radio station’s morning show. In this case the liking heuristic and the credibility heuristic are being used. Someone might be persuaded to set out tomato plants simply because neighbors are setting out tomato plants (the consensus heuristic); yet, that person is not persuaded to follow the tips about growing tomatoes given on a horticulturist’s tele- vision program.

Because elaboration likelihood is a variable, the receiver of a persuasive message will probably use both routes. Persuasion can take place with either route. The two routes to persuasion are not mutu- ally exclusive.

Since the mid-1980s, the elaboration likelihood theory has generated ample research and continues to do so. Daniel O’Keefe has assessed Cacioppo and Petty’s theory as the most promising theoreti- cal development, surpassing the theory of cogni- tive dissonance. ELT, the dominant persuasive theory, is seen in communication, psychology, marketing, health fields, and the like. It is certainly a central topic of communication theory.

Don Rodney Vaughan

See also Attitude Theory; Cognitive Theories; Dual-Level Connectionist Models of Group Cognition and Social Influence; Intrapersonal Communication Theories; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories; Social Judgment Theory

Further Readings

Frymier, A. B., & Nadler, M. K. (2006). Persuasion: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

EMOTION AND COMMUNICATION

The human experience of emotion is ubiquitous. Recently, however, communication theorists and researchers have discovered that the communica- tion of emotion is similarly omnipresent. Emotions are not just private, subjective experiences; univer- sal communication systems are designed to ver- bally and nonverbally communicate emotions to others.

Social evolutionary theorists recognize that emo- tional communication evolved because it conferred a selective advantage on expressive individuals. Fear displays, for example, evolved because they provide rapid danger signals to other members of the group, enhancing their collective survival. Across the gamut of human emotions, social evolutionary theorists have shown that every human emotion developed as more than an internal control system; emotions are consistently communicated because they pro- vide powerful survival advantages.

Throughout primate evolution and human his- tory, emotions have been communicated primarily through nonverbal communication. Emotional expression evolved long before the dawn of human language. Indeed, intercultural communication theorists have shown that human nonverbal emo- tional displays are primarily universal, though small regional “accents” or cultural variations exist. Cross-cultural similarity of emotional expres- sions indicates human evolutionary adaptations have occurred across the millennia.

Developmental communication theory also sup- ports the primacy of emotional communication. Nonverbal emotional expression precedes verbal communication in each human’s life. Every human infant is well-equipped at birth to express a variety of emotions. Successful communication depends on infants’ being well-equipped emotional senders and the skill of adults who vary widely in their ability to read infant displays. Infants show little control over emotional expression; they are bio- logically adapted to automatically communicate emotions. While socialization inculcates display rules for appropriate emotional communication, even adults frequently produce automatic, sponta- neous nonverbal expressions communicated through one’s voice, body, arms, and predomi- nantly facial expression.

333Emotion and Communication

Every emotion produces recognizable nonverbal displays. Similarly, emotions produce patterns of verbal communication designed to elicit appropri- ate responses in receivers. Paul Ekman’s landmark research revealed that at least six basic emotions are primarily pancultural and communicated simi- larly in cultures worldwide. Cultural display rules teach each developing individual to mask, amplify, minimize, magnify, substitute, or conceal emo- tional communication. Recent research and theory suggest that emotions display regional variations or accents in how they are communicated. Nonetheless, the six emotions discussed next—fear, anger, sadness, disgust, happiness, and surprise— are culturally universal and communicated simi- larly across culture.

Fear

One of Ekman’s six basic emotional expressions, fear, is among the most disturbing, but most important. Fear is contagious, and its expression warns others of impending danger, producing both functional danger avoidance behaviors and dys- functional phobic responses. Like birds on a wire, fear evokes collective avoidance and panic reac- tions in people. Fear is usually a transient emotion, though long-term fear can produce severe anxiety, paranoia, and phobic responses at both the inter- personal and collective levels. Throughout history, leaders of nations have often kept their citizens in a state of excessive fear, particularly fear of exter- nal threats, to control their behavior and enact draconian polices. Machiavelli was the first to write that fear was the most powerful means of social control that a leader could employ.

Fearful expressions accompany fear’s experi- ence, providing instant, typically nonverbal warn- ings to others about impending danger. Fear produces a distinctive facial expression, vocal exclamations, and flight-or-fight response. The classic fear expression is displayed by raised eye- brows and narrowed, triangular-shaped eyes pro- duced by raising the upper eyelid and tightening the lower eyelid, with lips stretched across bared lower teeth. Fear produces functional, spontane- ous ducking, fleeing, and cowering and nonverbal paralinguistics that include shouts, screams, and cries. Fear appeals have great pragmatic utility when used by parents, teachers, politicians, and

health agencies to influence attitudes and change behavior.

Anger

The second basic universal emotional expression is anger, an intense feeling of displeasure resulting from injury, harm, or mistreatment by others. Anger results from troubling social events, insults, verbal attacks, injuries, thoughtlessness, rudeness, frustration of a person’s goals by another person, threats to a person’s identity or reputation, or rela- tional threats such as infidelity or disloyalty.

Anger is communicated rapidly and spontane- ously through nonverbal and verbal expressions. Anger feels unpleasant, and though its display is frightening and detestable, it is a crucial form of communication that warns interactants of an angry person’s dangerous state and the possibility of impending attack. Without such a warning, anger could result in death or injury to the interactants.

Despite societal norms prohibiting the expres- sion of anger, angry outbursts are relatively com- mon. Angry communication is usually directed at the alleged perpetrator of hurt or harm but may also be shared with friends, family, and health pro- viders for catharsis or to elicit sympathy or social support.

Angry facial expressions include the clenched jaw, knit and lowered eyebrows, and menacing stares that are innate and culturally universal. Vocal behavior communicates anger via loud, harsh, low- pitched vocalizations. Angry verbal behaviors include profanity, berating the perpetrator, threats, or guilt inductions. Anger may result in “getting in one’s face,” shaking fists, or walking out on the presumed perpetrator. Angry expressions include foot stomping, slamming doors, breaking things, throwing tantrums, threatening gestures, becoming withdrawn, and terminating relationships.

Sadness

Sadness, depression, and grief result from and are expressed through communication. The primary source of sadness is interpersonal loss or troubled social interaction. Infants display sadness and distress in response to parents’ sadness displays. Depression, a chronic melancholic state, both results from and causes troubled relationships.

334 Emotion and Communication

Sadness displays are produced by every healthy infant to communicate distress to caregivers. These innate, spontaneous displays can also be intention- ally reproduced to communicate sadness through crying, a downturned mouth, and fussing. People also communicate sadness verbally to potential comforters to elicit relief from this unpleasant state. Sad individuals may speak softly, slowly, and unenthusiastically, without variation, and pause longer. Sad people avoid social interaction, become immobilized, and engage in a number of nonverbal behaviors, including sad facial expressions, slouch- ing, reduced smiling and eye contact, and less open body positions.

Disgust

A fourth basic emotion originated when humans encountered the taste or smell of rotten food, decaying animals, or bodily excrement. The dis- gust expression is recognized even by preschool children: a downturned mouth, sometimes accom- panied by a protruding tongue, a wrinkled nose, with the eyes nearly shut. Theorists reason that the original function of the disgust expression was to close sensory inputs and to eject noxious sub- stances. Disgust is communicated vocally with utterances such as “yuck” or “ick” and by verbal statements such as “gross” or “disgusting.”

Across the millennia humans have applied the disgust expression to distasteful people, relation- ships, and interactions. Whether gustatory or social, the disgust expression is an innate, cross- cultural response to noxious stimuli. Disgust was one of Darwin’s fundamental emotions and among Ekman’s basic facial expressions.

Happiness

The fourth basic emotion, happiness, is expressed and recognized worldwide as a universal sign of positive affect. An authentic, felt smile includes more than an upturned mouth; it includes raised cheeks, squinting, and smile lines around the eyes. The happiness display typically occurs during social interaction and is seldom displayed in pri- vate, suggesting the innately social roots of the experience and expression.

Smiling is an appeasement gesture signaling friendliness and low threat. Smiling occurs among

all primates and evolved as a sign of nonviolence designed to calm other individuals and establish positive relationships. Happiness motivates closer interpersonal distances and friendly tactile com- munication such as hugs and reduces violent, hos- tile touch. Happiness produces warm vocal tones and higher pitch during speech.

Surprise

Unlike the other five basic emotions, surprise lacks positive or negative evaluative content. Surprise is an orienting emotion in response to rapidly changing interpersonal or environmental circumstances. The surprise facial expression con- sists of an open mouth, raised eyebrows, open eyes, widened nostrils, head orientation toward the stimulus, and startled verbal or paralinguistic vocalizations. The universal, cross-cultural recog- nizability of surprise suggests its evolutionary interpersonal origins. Surprise is the most fleeting emotion, lasting a fraction of a second and quickly blending into expressions such as happiness, fear, or anger.

The Social Emotions

Beyond the six basic emotions are the social emo- tions, so named because they both result from and are displayed during interpersonal communica- tion. Social emotions evolved to socialize, reward, sanction, and discourage specific behaviors. Appropriate emotional displays and their accurate recognition are taught in every culture to facilitate smooth, harmonious social interaction.

Embarrassment evolved as an inherently social emotion during interaction from failed self- presentation, loss of face, or threats to self-esteem. Remediation of embarrassment occurs through verbal accounts and excuses along with nonverbal apologies including shrugs, sheepish looks, blushing, gaze aver- sion, feeble smiles, and interpersonal avoidance.

Similarly, guilt is a cross-cultural, social emo- tion functioning as a sanction for hurtful behavior or interpersonal transgressions. Guilt is communi- cated nonverbally via hiding, isolation, and con- trite, apologetic behaviors. Though a specific “guilt” facial expression has not been identified, sad, worried, or sorry facial expressions, particu- larly during apologies, typify communication of

335Emotion and Communication

guilt. Similarly, avoidance, bodily shrinking, and silence typify guilt in most cultures. People failing to display guilt and remorse following improper actions may be ostracized, banished, or even killed. Guilty communication demonstrates a remorseful attitude that reassures other group members. Guilt trips are strategic actions that attempt to change another person’s behavior.

Closely related to embarrassment and guilt is shame, a social emotion in both cause and mani- festation. It results from perceived transgressions against others and their negative reactions. Shame is an intense, negative feeling of inferiority and loss of respect from failing to live up to others and one’s own expectations. Emotions theorists dis- agree about whether shame is a primary emotion or an emotional blend including sadness, dejec- tion, anger, and helplessness. Ashamed individuals attempt to disappear, sulk, hide, slouch, cover the face, and avoid social interaction. Verbally, shamed individuals may declare their worthlessness or helplessness, ask for forgiveness, and promise to improve.

Pride is often viewed as a positive emotion though it is also one of the “seven deadly sins” that is said to come before a fall. Excessive pride communicates arrogance and conceit. Nonetheless, a modicum of pride is the basis of self-esteem and a natural reaction to compliments and accomplish- ments. Pride is inherently social; it depends on a real or imagined audience. Nonverbally, proud individuals stand and sit taller, exhibit signs of strength, expand and display their bodies, smile broadly, and produce celebratory behaviors such as hugs or “high fives.” Verbally, pride is displayed through both appropriate disclosure and inappro- priate boasting.

Love is a powerful primary emotion that is uni- versally experienced throughout the world. It occurs among people who seek or share a long, rich relationship. Love evolved to create lasting bonds between people that helped ensure the survival of pairs or groups in a dangerous world. It is overtly expressed by saying “I love you” and through non- verbal expressions such as prolonged eye contact; intimate touch including hugging, kissing, or sexual activity; increased smiling; more time spent together; and protective or nurturant actions.

Jealousy, which sometimes accompanies love, occurs when a person perceives that a third-party

rival threatens a primary relationship. Jealousy evolved as friend- and mate-protection from defection into other relationships. Although jeal- ousy is a unique emotion, it is accompanied by other emotions, including sadness, anger, fear, hate, and hurt. Jealousy occurs in close relation- ships and results in numerous communication behaviors, including negative affect displays toward one’s partner and rival through both ver- bal and nonverbal communication. Jealousy may lead to constructive communication, avoidance behaviors, denial, threats, violence, increased affec- tion, flirtation with potential partners, improve- ment of appearance or image, and stalking and other surveillance behaviors.

The Unique Role of Emotions

Theorists maintain that in the short term, emo- tions short-circuit cognitions. Feelings of emotion and their display occur rapidly, often faster than cognitive processing. Emotions evolved to provide rapid, quick, short-term reactions to changing environmental and interpersonal circumstances and long-term information to plan and execute strategic communication. Emotional communica- tion is the result of both biology and learning. Emotional communication evolved to help the individual, the group, and the human species sur- vive. However, culture and individual decisions always play a role in emotional expression. The communication of emotion is a complex mix of inherited, spontaneous emotional expressions along with enculturated displays under the strate- gic control of individuals.

Peter A. Andersen

See also Communibiology; Kinesics; Nonverbal Communication Theories

Further Readings

Andersen, P. A. (2008). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Long Grove IL: Waveland.

Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications and contexts. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of emotion in man and animals (3rd ed.). London: Harper Collins.

336 Empathy

Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New York: Academic Press.

Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 384–392.

EMPATHY

Empathy means to feel into another person’s bio- logical processes, perceptions, emotional states, and their kinds and forms of consciousness in order to assess their feelings. Further, empathy means not only assessing another’s affective com- munication, but using one’s assessments in order to be eventually helpful to another person’s com- munication development. Empathy also means having a purpose to help others with their strug- gles, their problems, their goals, and so forth. The purpose of practicing empathy is to improve com- munication between people. Empathy is natural and basic to decent and respectful human com- munication altogether. Empathy is central to improving human communication in that it helps to develop trust, predictability, and friendlier and more open communication between people. The nature of empathic sharing, a brief history of the study of empathy, and empathic processes will be the focus of this entry.

The Nature of Empathic Sharing

The meanings of the idea of empathy are complex, indicating that various systems of the brain and body are involved in being empathic toward oth- ers. Practicing empathy concerns a complex of nonverbal systems. The empathic system is mainly nonverbal in that empathy is mainly an emotional rather than a rational or logical kind of human processing. Sometimes one sensory or nonverbal system is dominant, and at another time several of the senses are involved, depending on levels of friendship and intimacy.

The initiation or avoidance of touching is very important to empathy. How someone touches, the placement of the touch, the length of the touch, the intensity of the touch, can influence empathy acquired and/or intended. The manner of looking, too, can be very important as there are warm

stares and glances, warm and avoiding eye con- tacts, cold looks, and many other characteristics of visual contacts. One’s hearing and auditory acuity are extremely important in the practice of empathy because how someone speaks carries much of the emotional meanings involved. The rate of speech, the loudness, the length of vowels, intonation pat- terns, pitch, and many other factors involved in vocal variety concern empathic processing of the other. The lengthening and shortening of vowels are especially important, as they carry attitudinal and emotional information from the right hemi- sphere of the brain into words spoken. The para- linguistics, or qualities of voice, are main factors in detecting and deciphering emotions in another person. Also, the kinesics, or movements, of a per- son are very important. There are microkinesics, blinks, facial expressions, twitches, finger move- ments, and many other small movements that indicate emotional presence. There are macrokine- sics, or large movements that can also reveal a person’s emotional states. It is in recognizing and processing nonverbal communication characteris- tics, then, that much of empathic information can be collected.

Most people think of empathy as putting your- self into someone else’s shoes or walking a mile in those shoes. This is a simple but important defini- tion. What it means is that one should try to see the world from others’ perspectives, from their point of view, from their emotions and problem situations, and circumstances in their lives, and not one’s own. Stereotyping, mistrustful relationships, and misun- derstandings arise when caring and empathic regard are not practiced. Some people are very adept at empathy and are very telepathic. Telepathy means feeling across, a direct contact by one person and the very accurate description of what another is thinking about or feeling. Most people have some telepathic abilities at certain times.

There are many factors involved in why some people cannot or will not practice empathy with others. Related to the idea of empathy is the notion of apathy, or no feeling, not caring. Many people guard their feelings and emotions, hiding them, and are careful not to reveal how they feel. They do not trust others and keep to themselves. They imagine themselves to be perfectly logical and rational and see feelings and sharing them as a sort of weakness. Some people, although they reveal

337Empathy

much to one another, are not willing to change themselves or their dysfunctional kinds of commu- nication. It is not easy to help others who are angry, hurt, or horribly repressed, and a helper must be cautious. While there are trained thera- pists, counselors, social workers, and the like, even trained helpers are sometimes not successful with clients who are dysfunctional.

Brief History

The derivation of the concept and meaning of the word empathy is informative. In 1897 the word was translated from the Greek language into the German language as einfuhlung, meaning to “feel oneself into” something during aesthetic perception and appreciation, “feel into” an art object or paint- ing, into a crystal, or into any object to understand its interior structures. The term was adapted from the Greek word empatheia, which means feeling into, finding or searching one’s way into, or experi- encing another. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the suffixes em- or en- mean to put into or go into, while path or patho, from the Greek, implies emotion, passion, or suffer- ing. Pathos concerns an emotion or sympathetic pity. The Oxford English Dictionary defines empa- thy as the power of projecting one’s personality into an object or person of contemplation.

The scholarship of the French child psychologist Jean Paul Piaget did much to develop the study of how children develop empathy in terms of role taking, or taking into oneself the imagined roles of others. Piaget’s students carried on his investiga- tions, showing that empathic role taking develops rapidly just before and during puberty, while other perceptual forms are developed even earlier.

The Chicago school of sociology did much to carry on the early work in describing empathic processes. George H. Mead and his students began the study of mind, self, and society, studying the smallest of human acts and what was taking place in the moment of interactions, in the here and now. More and more study and writing were developed by professionals in therapeutic circles— psychotherapists, psychologists, counselors, social workers, clergy, and helpers of others of many kinds. The work of Carl Rogers and others devel- oped new ideas about helping and training people who were to practice empathy with clients.

Empathic Processes

Object Identification

One often tries to figure out another person by categorizing him or her. This is a common but lim- ited form of empathy. One tries to localize the other, to find some means of coping with a new person or problems in their lives. Objective kinds of empathy can be very important to classify oth- ers, to define them vis-à-vis oneself. This kind of empathy is basic to later forms of empathy based in conceptual and psychological processes. One must be able to identify another for ongoing rela- tionships to develop. What happens is that many people, in order to keep others at a distance, invent names, convenient slots, for those they meet, and put them into categories as a quick way to describe them without getting to know them at all.

Imitation and Simulation

One of the most important aspects of the empathic process concerns early developmental forms of biological, sensory, and perceptual behav- iors. This kind of empathic ability seems to develop before cognitive or psychological kinds of empathy process. We often imitate and replicate the behav- iors of others close to us. We attempt to act, speak, move, and enact the behaviors of significant others in our lives. Much of early play is the attempt to pretend and create enactments of other people’s behaviors.

The essence of imitation and simulation concerns the sharing of biological and sensory rhythms that people do not realize they are projecting. Indeed, most cues or signs or signals are wave-based neural processes and are processed without conscious recognition. It is an invisible kind of nonverbal communication. The newest field of nonverbal communication is called chronemics. Chronemics is very much involved as a silent and hidden language that is an important basis of empathy development. This level of communication continues into adult- hood and is not something that is forgotten or overcome.

We attempt to imitate the motorality of another in our own musculature. We respond to others by reproducing the acts of the other(s). Kenneth Burke’s theory of identification noted that we overcome differences when we transcend them by

338 Empathy

adopting similar dress, behavior, language, and attitudes. William S. Howell elegantly described this kind of empathy when he discussed empathy as the ability to replicate what one perceives. One can improve one’s empathic abilities by learning to process a host of biological and perceptual cues available to anyone. A person need not be a physi- cian or medical expert to begin to pick up these vital kinds of information from another’s presence and nonverbal communication.

To be mutually entrained to another means that one is beginning to feel a synchronicity, a develop- ing synching or bonding with another person. These synching behaviors are what have been called bonding experiences between people, shared and reflected smiles, shared tears, similar laugh- ings, and many other forms of interaction that become synchronous. Mirrored reciprocities, recip- rocal interactions, develop that help people to bond with one another. Friendships and intimacies develop from the careful uses of imitations and simulations.

Recently, in brain studies, there has been an attempt to discover the neurology of imitation and simulation. This concerns what have been described as the actions of mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are clusters of neurons that seem to be activated in a monkey when it sees another monkey eating or doing something necessary. Both monkeys activate similar neuronal areas in the brain simultaneously. At first, this activity was touted as being basic to all kinds of empathy, but later it was shown to be involved only at the imitation or simulation levels of empathic processing—the biological and sig- nalic levels. However, it seems improbable that some minor clusters of neurons alone could be responsible for many psychological and social aspects of empathy.

Empathic Psychological Processes

Most of the writings about empathy have come from various fields of psychology. Each particular field seems to have some differences of focus in its discussions of empathy. Most views of this topic are what David Berlo defined as a kind of mental empathy related to making inferences about others, the inference theory of empathy. Basically, the inference-making process is involved somewhat in all psychological or cognitive-making thinking

about others. Losing consciousness of one’s self in the other and the experience of foreign conscious- ness in general are also common descriptions of empathy as a psychological mode. Some other descriptions of the psychological process are I-and- the-other; the nowness of youness; trial identifica- tion; identification; a creative act; personal introspection about another in the here and now; vicarious introspection; sudden intuition; a mode of cognition; an information-gathering activity; pre- dicting what others will feel, say, or do about you, themselves, and others; projecting one’s conscious- ness into another; resonating the other as a special unconscious ability; and creating an interpersonal space in the analytic and therapeutic situation.

Empathy as Steps in the Interactive Process

Some scholars have tried to describe a step-by- step prescription for counselors, therapists, and helpers to use in their practices. Some of them per- tain to professional uses, and some are merely to change the sequence of the therapeutic processes of empathizing. The earliest description was outlined by Theodor Lipps in 1907: (a) one is stimulated by another person and imitates the person; (b) the observer feels himself or herself into the other person; (c) the observer loses consciousness of him- self or herself; and then (d) the observer experiences the other, as if he or she had become the other. Another example of a step-by-step empathic process is (a) identifying with the other person by becoming absorbed in the other; (b) capturing and incorporating the experience of the other into ourselves; (c) having the other’s experience echo and reverberate within ourselves; and (d) then distancing ourselves from the other by detached, objective analysis.

Others discussed empathic methods more color- fully in the actual, here and now, in the momentary interactive context: There is a meeting of us two, eye to eye, face to face. When you are near I will take your eyes out and place them in my sockets instead of yours, and you will take my eyes out and place them into your sockets. Then, I will look at you with your eyes and you will look at me with mine. This is one of the very first descriptions of what can be called mutual empathy, a sharing of empathy in the interactive moment.

Another way in which empathy can have differ- ent steps, or kinds of activities in sequences, is the

339Empathy

idea of the interplay of three kinds of empathy: interactive empathy, reflective empathy, and pro- jective empathy. Interactive empathy concerns our focus and levels of attention as well as how percep- tion is involved in the here and now. It is in the actualities, the dynamics of the using one’s very high levels of attentional focus and vigilance. High levels of attention are necessary for memories to be remembered by the helper, later. The focus must be highly variable and carefully selective. It requires much practice, with trials and errors as a method- ology. One must separate verbal and nonverbal communication, jumping from one to the other, over and over during the actual interactions between a helper and another. One listens carefully so as to attempt to separate what a person is say- ing from what that person is feeling when speak- ing. This takes practice. One must create a model of the other’s nonverbal behaviors to be remem- bered later, by focusing on different kinds of non- verbal communication and being highly alert to processing semiotic, emotional, or nonverbal infor- mation. One can and should increase one’s levels of attention and awareness to a very high degree.

Reflective empathy concerns being away from interactive exchanges, being alone, later. One reflects on the other, seeing him or her again as imagery. It is a re-search, or searching again. One re-sees and re-hears the person. One re-spects the other, or sees them again; one focuses on visual and auditory memories, as well as memories of all the nonverbal systems observed. One reflects on the other’s emotions and attitudes expressed in the other’s voice and movements. Re-membering means putting the members of a past communication interaction back together again. This also helps to preserve the memory of the interaction and its recall. This stage is a movement toward the final step, the use of projective or predictive empathy.

Projective empathy is doing imagined interac- tions, seeing ahead into the future and imaging the next interaction to take place with the other. Projective empathy is sometimes called predictive empathy, if it actually becomes successful. In pro- jective empathy, one thinks ahead with interactive and reflective forms of empathy already in mind. One uses this forecasting information to plan what to say, when and how to say it, and why one should say something or act in some manner when seeing the other person again.

These three kinds of empathy are congruent with all major psychological processes, present, past, and future. Interactive empathy concerns attention and perceptions, sensing in the present moment, in the nowness of the interactions. Reflective empathy concerns the past, preserving memories of the interactive event. Reflections on the interactive event help to recollect and solidify memories of the event, putting them together again, remembering. It concerns human memory and mnemonics, the past. Projective empathy con- cerns planning; thinking ahead; using futurity, imagined interactions, anticipation and expec- tancy, the future. These activities are main func- tions of the human brain and, if used carefully, have much promise for the development of better empathic skills.

Social Role Taking as an Empathic Process

Role taking develops very early in a person’s development, as role taking is built on imitating and simulating others in one’s communication environments. With maturity and increasing social- ization comes the increasing potential to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, and one begins to think about another person’s viewpoint. One begins to empathize with the other’s life roles and occupational roles.

Life roles are those concerned with family rela- tives and intimates, important, significant others. One attempts to take the role of others in one’s imagination. The nature of the role obligations of that person is of major concern. Take your own mother’s role, seeing how she sees her mother- hood, and you. Think of acting like your mother. See her many viewpoints. Role enactments are excellent family therapy tools.

One can mentally take on the role obligations, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and values of others. Actors and actresses do role-playing continually. Taking or playing life roles is very important as learning devices, in that these social roles concern our primary connections with significant others. How we perceive another’s occupational role, too, can give us important clues, important informa- tion, in how we can or should communicate with others in organizations and elsewhere.

Tom Bruneau

340 Empiricism

See also Chronemics; Emotion and Communication; I and Thou; Identification; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Rhetorical Sensitivity; Rogerian Dialogue Theory; Symbolic Interactionism

Further Readings

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bruneau, T. J. (1989). Empathy and listening: A conceptual review and theoretical directions. Journal of the International Listening Association, 3, 1–20.

Bruneau, T. J. (1993). Empathy and listening. In A. D. Wolvin & C. G. Coakley (Eds.), Perspectives on listening (pp. 185–200). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bruneau, T. J. (2000). Peace communication: The ethics of caring across cultures. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 455–463). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Clark, A. J. (2006). Empathy in counseling and psychotherapy: Perspectives and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Howell, W. S. (1982). The empathic communicator. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Katz, R. L. (1963). Empathy: Its nature and uses. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Lichtenberg, J., Bornstein, M., & Silver, D. (1984). Empathy: Vols. 1 & 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Malle, B. F., & Hodges, S. D. (2005). Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others. New York: Guilford Press.

Scheler, R. (1959). The nature of empathy (P. Heath, Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stein, E. (1989). On the problem of empathy (3rd ed.; W. Stein, Trans.). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.

EMPIRICISM

Empiricism is not a theory as such; it is a founda- tional system that governs the elements and rela- tionships from which theories are formed. One may think of it as a set of specifications that deter- mine what theories can be and what they might be able to do. Empiricists believe that knowledge comes to us via observation through our senses or that its claims should be based on observations. Statements not validated by an observation of a

physical event do not qualify as knowledge. This rules out theories about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Pumpkin, because no valid observations are available about either entity. At the same time, empiricists find certain unobserv- able concepts acceptable because they are based on other, more fundamental observations. Examples are the orbit of Mars, behavioral intentions, com- forting communication, or couple types.

Empiricism relies on a further assumption that events can be observed, recorded, and compared in sensible ways and that these records are the equiv- alent of direct observations. This assumption depends on the usefulness of various procedures, such as controlled experiments and validated instruments that remove the subjectivity inherent in human information processing. Empiricists also believe that there is a real world separate from our evaluation of it. For example, many persons believe in “metaphysical” entities such as the soul, but empiricists deny that such nonphysical ele- ments are real because they cannot be observed through the senses.

Historical Roots

Ancient skeptics were atheists, the most prominent of which was Sextus Empiricus (about 150 CE). Skeptics denied Plato’s assertion that there existed a noumenal, or real, world (in contrast to a phe- nomenal world, which is inside the person) in which entities such as justice and honor had their true existence. This naive skepticism is not very useful, because we all believe in things we have not seen. Few persons have ever seen their liver, but most of us believe that we have one. Emily Dickinson never saw the sea (even though Amherst is only about 100 miles from the ocean) but felt that she was justified in believing in its existence. So most empiricists not only believe in the evidence of one’s senses but also extend that belief to descriptions of entities furnished by other persons and, in addition, entities that could possibly be observed given sufficient effort and expenditure to do so.

Most historians of philosophy agree with Bertrand Russell that Western thought has long been divided into two basic groups: those inspired by the nature of mathematics, and those who rely instead on empirical principles. Russell placed

341Empiricism

Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, and Immanuel Kant in the former group because they relied on a priori principles derivable from language as the source of fundamental knowledge. In the other group Russell placed Democritus, Aristotle, and empiricists from John Locke onward.

Values of Empirical Research

Because empiricism seems so obvious, many people wonder why theorists need to argue for it as a foundation of theory building. The answer is that human history is riddled with nonempirical beliefs that have had significant harmful effects. For example, Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men and that this was a manifestation of woman’s “essence,” which was inferior to that of men. This view was accepted for centuries without question because Aristotle said it. An empiricist would insist on counting teeth rather than believ- ing Aristotle. When one does so, the dentition of men and women proves to be the same. Today a few people still believe that race and intelligence are associated in a causal fashion, in spite of the mountains of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Many researchers believe that communication (as well as sociology and psychology) can be stud- ied using a variety of methods. Probably the most fundamental paradigmatic division in communica- tion theory is a separation between interpretive/ critical and empirical (or objective) thought. This distinction provides support for such formulations as rules theory, social construction theory, cultural climates, narrative theory, and other interpretive schemes. A currently popular manifestation of interpretive thought finds its justification in quali- tative, as opposed to quantitative, research.

Most proponents of empirical method feel it is necessary to separate observation from evalua- tion, worrying that empirical issues should not be mixed with moral ones. They argue that confus- ing observed fact with evaluation has historically created terrible problems. The holocaust resulted from Hitler’s position that Blacks, Gypsies, homo- sexuals, and Jews were Untermenschen, or less than human. The attribution of subhuman char- acteristics to other persons is a value claim mas- querading as a factual one. Today the AIDS epidemic is one of the most serious public health problems facing the world, yet the efforts of the

U.S. government to deal with it have been ham- pered by the intrusion of moral evaluations, such as the characterization of AIDS as a “gay dis- ease” and condemnation of alternate lifestyles. This is not to say that moral issues and values are unimportant but to argue against confusing them with factual observations. This is a value of empiricism.

Problems With Empiricism

Strict empiricism, however, can lead to problems of its own. Reliance only on sensory experience ignores a good deal of information that may be quite useful, making logical inference essential. Health care, for example, must rely on causal assumptions that are not actually observed. If an individual’s blood reacts in a particular way in a laboratory, a physician examining the results of this test may conclude that the individual’s circu- latory system has a good deal of a substance called cholesterol and that this condition might result in heart disease. If the patient agrees, the physician may ask the patient to take medicine to reduce the condition. A later, more favorable test leads the physician to conclude that the patient’s cholesterol is reduced and that the risk is allevi- ated. Notice that at no point does either the doc- tor or the patient actually see any of this substance in the circulatory system. Both of them are satis- fied that the blood test in and of itself is a satisfac- tory index of the cholesterol level. The doctor might explain that persons with a certain kind of blood have been observed to have more heart dis- ease and shorter life spans. These direct observa- tions are taken for granted. However, there is a good deal of medical research for which no direct cause and effects can be cited, and here empirical principles fail, and logic and judgment have to be relied on.

Most communication researchers in the empiri- cal tradition also rely on logic and judgment to complete the picture started with empirical obser- vations. Every published experimental study, for example, has a discussion section in which the authors speculate about possible logical connec- tions and conclusions based on the data. These interpretations are important because they open areas for further exploration and observation and the development of theory.

342 Entertainment–Education

Many theorists see inherent difficulty in empiri- cal research stemming from a tendency of a researcher to see what he or she wants to see. This is a problem everywhere. One classic example occurred in the debate about evolution. Almost every textbook in biology cites the example of the spotted moth evolving as the atmosphere changed in Britain. As the air became more sooty, the moths supposedly evolved their wing colors, making them more difficult for predators to find. Actually, the data cited in this effect were highly suspect.

If theories begin with observations, then induc- tion is required to analyze them and point out similarities and formulate general principles. But induction from observables is sharply limited. A valuable extension is to formulate principles through inductive observation and then derive new principles from these through deduction. Indeed, theories are always more than single generaliza- tions based on a set of observations. They must connect these general ideas with other ideas in a logical system. Albert Einstein once observed that the more general and far-reaching the theory becomes, the less value basic observation could be for building theory.

Robert Bostrom

See also Epistemology; Humanistic Perspective; Inquiry Processes; Interpretive Theory; Phenomenology; Realism and the Received View

Further Readings

Berkeley, G. (1957). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1710)

Bostrom, R. N. (2003). Theories, data, and communication research. Communication Monographs, 70, 275–294.

Harrington, N., & Bostrom, R. (1996). Objectivism as the basic context for theory and research in communication. In J. L. Owen (Ed.), Context and communication behavior (pp. 118–143). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Hooper, J. (2002). Of moths and men. New York: Norton.

Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His life and his universe. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Russell, B. (1945). A history of Western philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

ENTERTAINMENT–EDUCATION

Entertainment–education (E-E) is a theory-based communication strategy for purposefully embed- ding educational and social issues in the creation, production, processing, and dissemination process of an entertainment program in order to achieve desired individual, community, institutional, and societal changes among the intended media user populations.

Theorizing is an integral part of every aspect of the E-E strategy, from designing a program to its evaluation. For example, Miguel Sabido, a televi- sion writer–producer–director in Mexico, devel- oped a methodology for E-E soap operas, centering on Stanford psychologist Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, which explains how human beings learn new behaviors by observing mass-mediated role models. In operationalizing Bandura’s concept of role modeling, Sabido hypothesized that the rela- tionship between an audience member and a media role model goes beyond the cognitive information- processing domain. For instance, audience members participate in parasocial relationships, analogous to real relationships, with media personalities and readily invite these people into their homes via tele- vision or radio. They may even talk to these charac- ters by addressing the television or radio set.

Thoughtful, deliberate, and purposeful embed- ding of educational messages in entertainment genres, in all their nuance and complexity, is cen- tral to the E-E strategy. That is, E-E is not just inserting an educational message in an entertain- ment program but involves the development of creative ideas for programming, the actual produc- tion and dissemination, audience-centered infor- mation processing and interpersonal dialogue, and individual and collective decisions and actions. E-E programs often contribute to social change at the middle- and macrolevel by influencing social dynamics between and among individuals, cultural groups, communities, organizations, and social systems at large. An E-E strategy is directed at an intended media user population, comprising audi- ences of mass media products (newspapers, films, television, and radio) and/or consumers of games and virtual environments. Consider the following examples of mass media–sparked social changes in three locations on three continents.

343Entertainment–Education

In 1996, All India Radio in New Delhi, India, then broadcasting a radio soap opera Tinka Tinka Sukh (Happiness Lies in Small Things), received a colorful poster–letter signed by 184 community members from a village named Lutsaan in India’s Uttar Pradesh state. It stated that listening to Tinka Tinka Sukh had benefited the village, particularly the women, and that listeners came to oppose dowries and would not participate in this practice. Listeners in Lutsaan said they were stirred by Poonam’s character—a young bride, who is beaten and verbally abused by her husband and in-laws for not providing an adequate dowry, the payment by a bride’s parents to the groom’s parents.

In 2000, when Camilla, the protagonist on Lazos de Sangre (Blood Ties), a popular Brazilian tele- novela, was diagnosed with leukemia, the Brazilian National Registry of Bone Marrow Donors reported that new donor registrations increased by 45 times: from about 20 a month to 900 a month.

On August 3, 2001, when Tony was diagnosed with HIV on an episode of the popular soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful, the number of calls within the hour to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s AIDS hotline increased 16 times over the previous hour. This storyline, which ran during 7 months, was seen in over 100 countries, for an estimated audience of about 400 million people.

Theoretical Bases of E-E

Albert Bandura’s social learning/cognitive theory has dominated the theory-based production and investigation of E-E programs—not surprising, since E-E programs seek to influence the behaviors of audience members through positive and nega- tive role models. Bandura’s theory states that indi- viduals learn through modeling by observing and imitating others. Social learning theory is both behaviorist, in that it explains behavior, and cogni- tive, in that it explains behavior in terms of indi- viduals’ cognitive processes of attention, memory, and motivation.

Most E-E investigations have focused on pro- viding cognitive and rational explanations of audi- ence effects, utilizing theoretical frameworks such as the elaboration likelihood model, which shows when people are more likely to evaluate arguments critically and when they are more likely to be influ- enced by peripheral concerns, and the health belief

model. This work also relies in part on theories related to the hierarchy of communication effects, stages of change, and others. However, scholarly interest in focusing on the rhetorical, play, and affective aspects of E-E, emphasizing the entertain- ment rather than the education aspect of E-E, is on the rise.

Scholars realize that E-E interventions that are soap opera centered represent highly complex nar- ratives with multiple plotlines, protagonists and antagonists, and twists and turns. E-E investiga- tions now theoretically seek to explain why certain narratives may be perceived by audience members as more involving, engaging, coherent, and believ- able than certain others. Questions are being broached about how a narrative’s rhetorical punch may be influenced by the E-E intervention’s medium, broadcast frequency, length, time of broadcast, and other attributes. Scholars now con- duct research on how a complex E-E narrative may “transport” audience members from their present situation into a hypothetical situation, influencing their repertoire of possible actions. Scholars also investigate how an audience member’s repeated and prolonged distress from seeing a favorite char- acter in deep trouble enhances the involvement and enjoyment of the drama and its resolution.

Theoretical investigations of E-E now have begun to take the role of audience emotions more seriously. While emotions have primarily been investigated in interpersonal contexts, and on a limited basis in organizational contexts, they were not systematically broached in mass-mediated con- texts. E-E investigations now increasingly focus on the communication of affect from media characters to audience members. For instance, how are audi- ence members “infected” by the emotional state of characters? Might witnessing the death of a favor- ite character from AIDS, and the grief experienced by his parents, widow, and three young children, serve as a more powerful trigger to adopting a health prevention behavior than a rational media message that promotes condom use? The field of E-E is charting new directions in terms of theory, characterized by increasing breadth and depth.

Today and Tomorrow

E-E today is a worldwide phenomenon, with almost every nation and every well-known social

344 Environmental Communication Theories

change agency having, or having had, an E-E proj- ect. Diverse opinions now characterize the E-E field, including the voices of enthusiasts, dissent- ers, and skeptics. More organizations are engaged in the practice of E-E, and now teaching and scholarship on E-E are finding their way into university-based schools of communication, public health, and international development. Evaluations of E-E interventions, over the years, have become increasingly sophisticated, employ- ing multiple theoretical perspectives and research methods. In the past decade or so, the E-E strategy emerged as an important issue in the fields of communication, health, and development practice and research.

The field of E-E will move into various expres- sive forms such as arts, crafts, textiles, murals, and other forms well beyond mass-mediated communi- cation. In South Africa, for example, positive pottery includes colorful AIDS ribbons, made by individuals with HIV, etched with various African images. E-E is expected in the future to integrate “modern” and “traditional” entertainment out- lets, along with “big” and “little” media technolo- gies, an eventuality made possible by advances in the Internet. Web-based delivery makes it possible to tailor a communication message to audience members. Further, such interventions will probably become more closely in touch with participatory methods, as the work of Brazilian theater director Augusto Boal illustrates. Boal, who founded the Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) movement, based his work on Paulo Freire’s principles of dialogue and interaction. Here active spectators (“spect- actors”) address and reflect on problems and take control of situations so that they are not put in the role of passive receiver or victim.

E-E is already starting to go beyond traditional communication forms in areas such as family plan- ning and HIV prevention to address other pressing social issues, including, for example, peace, con- flict mediation, terrorism, and race relations. The role of E-E will be recognized as a factor in under- standing how people work toward liberation and empowerment through using traditional songs and performances to protest, resist, invite dialogue, engage in debate, and cope with the circumstances in which they live.

Arvind Singhal

See also Elaboration Likelihood Theory; Media and Mass Communication Theories

Further Readings

Papa, M. J., Singhal, A., Law, S., Sood, S., Rogers, E. M., & Shefner, C. L. (2000). Entertainment-education and social change: An analysis of parasocial interaction, social learning, collective efficacy, and paradoxical communication. Journal of Communication, 50, 31–55.

Singhal, A., Cody, M. J., Rogers, E. M., & Sabido, M. (2004). Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment- education: A communication strategy for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (2002). A theoretical agenda for entertainment-education. Communication Theory, 12, 117–135.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION THEORIES

Environmental communication is a field within the communication discipline, as well as a meta- field that cuts across disciplines. Research and theory within the field are united by the topical focus on communication and human relations with the environment. Scholars who study envi- ronmental communication are particularly con- cerned with the ways people communicate about the natural world because they believe that such communication has far-reaching effects at a time of largely human-caused environmental crises. This entry outlines some ways researchers who study environmental communication use existing theory to investigate their particular questions about human–nature relations. The entry also illustrates ways scholars have developed and are currently developing theory that is specific to envi- ronmental communication. The final section of this entry explores the ways some environmental communication scholars see their goals of apply- ing and creating theory not only as trying to understand and explain but also as striving to improve human relations with nature.

345Environmental Communication Theories

Central to environmental communication the- ory are these assumptions: The ways we communi- cate powerfully affect our perceptions of the living world; in turn, these perceptions help shape how we define our relations with and within nature and how we act toward nature. Thus, environmental communication scholars often speak of communi- cation as not only reflecting but also constructing, producing, and naturalizing particular human relations with the environment.

Many environmental communication theories include the assumption that human representa- tions of nature, be they verbal or nonverbal, public or interpersonal, face-to-face or mediated commu- nication, are interested. This, in part, means that communication about nature is informed by social, economic, and political contexts and interests. These contexts and interests help to shape our communication, often in ways we are unaware of, and direct us to see nature through particular lenses while also obscuring other views of nature.

The theories that scholars use to investigate these assumptions range widely in their epistemo- logical and methodological orientations. Because human relations with nature are negotiated within cultural communication, mass media, public communication, interpersonal communication, popular culture, and so forth, environmental com- munication theory draws from cultural theory, media theory, rhetorical theory, social movement theory, pop-culture theory, and many other areas. In this way, environmental communication researchers have accessed existing theories to serve as conceptual frameworks for their questions and studies.

For example, in media studies of environmental communication, researchers have at times used framing theory to analyze media coverage of the environment, finding, for example, that the main- stream media increasingly frame environmental activist ecotage (eco-sabotage) as ecoterrorism. In examining cultural manifestations of human– nature relations in face-to-face communication, some researchers have used ethnographic approaches, finding, for example, that members of a particular non-Western culture speak of “listen- ing” to nature, a cultural form of communication that supports a highly reflective and revelatory mode of communication that opens one to the relationships between natural and human forms.

Environmental communication scholars also bor- row from and add to transdisciplinary theory that is both environment specific, such as ecofeminist the- ory and political ecology, and non-environment- specific, such as social constructionist theory, systems theory, and performance theory. In addi- tion, scholars have created theories that emanate specifically from environmental communication issues. These borrowed and generated theories are applied to a variety of sites of human–nature rela- tions. For instance, some theories focus on explain- ing public dialogue about the environment, including political, media, and advocate discourses, while some focus on explaining cultural views or every- day communication about the environment. Other, more general theories span these and other sites of communication because they deal with fundamen- tal ways humans communicate about nature.

Origins of Environmental Communication

Environmental communication is thought to have emerged as a distinct field in the United States in the early 1980s from the tradition of rhetorical theory. In historical accounts of the young disci- pline, scholars often cite the 1984 publication of a generative rhetorical study as definitively announc- ing the field to the rest of the communication dis- cipline. In this study, Christine Oravec analyzed the discourse of early-1900s preservationists and conservationists, two sides of a controversy over whether to build a dam in a highly regarded natu- ral site. Oravec illustrated how conservationists won—and the dam was built—by appealing to a “progressive” view of the “public” and its rela- tionship to nature. The debate signaled the defeat of one view of society—the preservationist view that the intact beauty of nature served the nation as an organic whole—and the rise of the conserva- tionist view of progressivism, in which the material needs of individuals determine the uses of nature, a view which is still a dominant discursive force in the ways environmental decisions are made today.

While early environmental communication work was not limited to rhetorical theory, a range of important environmental communication the- ory has emerged from the application of rhetorical theory, including historical explorations of the sublime response to nature and explanations of the rhetorical uses of the locus of the irreparable in

346 Environmental Communication Theories

environmental issues. More recent rhetorical research has theorized about the ways environ- mental activists use widely televised image events, such as the positioning of activist boats between whaling harpoon and whale or the occupying of old-growth trees marked for logging, in efforts to confront profit-motive-driven industrialism with community and ecological needs. Other scholars have used rhetorical theory to grapple with ways the inventional resources of melodrama might transform environmental controversies and oppose dominant discourses that rationalize or obscure environmental threats and to explore how certain Native communities’ arguments are excluded from decisions about where to store nuclear waste. Many of these studies critically expand on notions and theories of rhetoric by focusing on the repro- ductive and transformative potentials of such forms of environmental communication.

Recent work using critical rhetorical theory also points to crossovers with critical discourse analy- sis, a largely European theoretical and method- ological tradition. Critical discourse analysis is often used to explore human–nature issues in the discipline of ecolinguistics, the parallel or sister discipline of environmental communication, which has a strong presence in Europe. As in critical dis- course analysis and ecolinguistics, critical efforts to ground rhetorical theory in issues of power and the material world have been central to environmental communication research. Some environmental communication rhetorical theorists have turned to theories outside rhetoric and communication to purposefully ground their work in the environ- mental and social spheres. For instance, some envi- ronmental communication rhetoric scholars have incorporated social systems theory to explore more holistic analyses of human–nature relations. Others have turned to political economy and political ecology to explain how rhetorical repre- sentations of the environment reflect and repro- duce a particular political economy of interests.

Material–Symbolic Discourse

Because environmental communication research looks at human society as well as the natural world beyond the human, many environmental commu- nication scholars have been interested in discourse theory informed by poststructuralism, as well as

contemporary disciplines such as science studies and cultural studies. Informed by these traditions, many environmental communication scholars view our systems of representation as both symbolic and material. This means that scholars view the material world as helping to shape communication and communication as helping to shape the mate- rial world.

An example is the word environment. Environment is a symbol we dominantly use in Western culture to describe the natural world in a way that connotes a material nature that surrounds us and is separate from us. The symbol, or meta- phor, of environment is not only shaped by material and symbolic Western historical and contemporary relations with nature, but also helps to shape our contemporary ideas of and actions toward nature, allowing us to perceive and treat the living world as separate from and often as secondary to the human species. Environmental communication scholars explain that the word environment reflects anthro- pocentric, or human-centered, cultural views of and relations with the living Earth. At the same time, the dominant use of the term environment to describe nature helps to reproduce such anthropo- centric views, reconstructing perceptions that allow for exploitive and destructive actions that continu- ously materially shape the biosphere.

The ontological orientation of viewing discourse as both material and symbolic necessarily brings issues of power to the forefront of theories of envi- ronmental communication. Communication about the “environment” is embedded within social sys- tems and within the power that is negotiated within these systems. As such, social, cultural, eco- nomic, and ideological forces inform representa- tions of nature, constraining or allowing for particular ways of communicating about the “envi- ronment.” Societal responses to ecological degra- dation are filtered through dominant systems of environmental representation. Environmental communication scholars critique and raise aware- ness about existing dominant discourses that are harmful to the environment. In doing so, they look, not only at communication that is directly about the environment, but also at communication that is not necessarily about the environment but that has an impact on the environment—such as neoliberal discourses of free trade that indirectly cause enormous environmental damage.

347Environmental Communication Theories

In addition, environmental communication scholars explore and theorize about alternative ways of speaking about human relations with nature that may be beneficial to the biosphere. Some environmental communication scholars the- orize that such alternative ways of communicating about nature may help human society overcome or subvert destructive culturally dominant ways of relating with nature. In this way, while environ- mental communication scholars are interested in exploring the ways symbols, such as “environ- ment,” might be shaped by worldviews that situate humans as separate from and often superior to nature, scholars are also often interested in illus- trating other representations of human–nature relations that might allow for different views and inform different actions.

Mediating Human–Nature Relations

Environmental communication scholars have explored the notion that communication mediates human–nature relations in a variety of ways and from a variety of orientations. On one hand, much like a material–symbolic discursive approach to environmental communication, this theory of com- munication mediating nature understands human communication as mediating human views and actions toward nature. Studies that explore this notion include rhetorical critiques of core cultural environmental narratives that find human–nature or culture–nature binaries as ideological organiz- ing factors; critical reads of popular media repre- sentations of nature that find the reproduction or the undoing of dominant environmental narra- tives; and interpretations of ways that attitudes of ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, or ecocentrism might inform the communication of everyone, from the average citizen to environmental advo- cates. Still others have investigated how multiple and varied discourses mediate notions and rela- tions with nature in single everyday utterances.

On the other hand, some environmental com- munication scholars are also interested in how nature might mediate communication. In this sense, these scholars are interested not only in how human representations of nature mediate views of and actions toward nature, but also in how nature “speaks.” This theoretical move is symptomatic of an environmental communication scholarly

orientation that sees importance in how nature is represented in research. Just as many environmen- tal communication scholars view dominant Western environmental discourse as separating nature from the human, many also see much academic research as doing the same kind of work in creating culture– nature binaries. In countless examples of communi- cation research and other humanities, social-science, and physical-science research, nature is represented as a mute object, separated from humans, which exists as a static background, as an economic re - source, or as an object to which things are done.

In situating nature as an integrated and dynamic communicatory participant that has a role in medi- ating human–nature relations, environmental com- munication scholars explore ways of understanding and articulating environmental copresence. This more recent theoretical move in environmental communication scholarship is an attempt not only to explain but also to subvert anthropocentric and hierarchical articulations of human–nature rela- tions. To aid in this endeavor, some environmental communication scholars have turned to existing theory, such as phenomenology, which stitches the human back into the fabric of the Earth. Others have worked to articulate a materialist theory of communication in order to overcome the objectifi- cation of nature in constitutive theories. Others have empirically illustrated ways people of Western cultures discuss nature “speaking.” Still others argue that nature, or the “extrahuman,” must be included not only in communication but also in democratic practices.

All these approaches represent a notable depar- ture from a traditional communication scholarship theoretical assumption that communication is what makes humans different from other animals or delineates us from nature as human. Here, instead, the scholarly effort is to undo such binary assumptions and to include nature in an effort to hear the interaction of myriad voices of the ecosys- tems of which humanity is a part.

Applied and Activist Theory

Much environmental communication scholarship is critically engaged not only with understanding human–nature relations but also in aiding some- how in social-environmental change. This aid ranges from scholars articulating via theory and

348 Environmental Communication Theories

research how communication helps to shape and shift nature all the way to explicitly activist research in which theory directly emerges and/or is directly applied to particular socioenvironmental situations in an effort to help enact transformation.

Recent conversations within environmental communication have been particularly interested in the ethical role of scholars. Some researchers have gone so far as to claim that environmental communication is a crisis discipline because it deals either directly or indirectly with pressing issues such as climate crisis, endangered species, and toxic pollution. Much as the trans-discipline of conservation biology strives to illustrate and explain the biological elements of ecological col- lapse in an attempt to both halt and reverse this collapse, some claim environmental communica- tion scholars have an ethical duty to not only try to explain but also help change the society that has caused ecological collapse and at the same time not responded adequately to this crisis.

Environmental communication scholars who are driven by this urgency to address the environ- mental failures and healing possibilities of com- munication not only explore and critique discourses but also often engage directly in these discourses by facilitating public processes, sharing critiques with discourse producers, and even providing alternative discourses that are more sustainable. Some environmental communication scholars choose research sites that involve environmental activism and in turn raise awareness about existing alternative or resistant discourses by writing about such practices (e.g., toxic tours led by marginalized communities). Some scholars study emerging sites of environmental action in an effort to articulate effective activist practices (e.g., studies of climate crisis activism such as the recent nationally net- worked Step It Up actions designed to address global warming). Still others choose sites and approaches to their research that ensure they are not only observers but also participants in the environmental work going on in their research sites (e.g., as volunteers for environmental protec- tion groups or as active participants in environ- mental movements).

Many of these scholars develop theories that they apply directly to the sites they study in an effort to try to change unjust or unproductive envi- ronmental practices in these settings. For instance,

the theory of the trinity of public participation attempts to illustrate the role of practical theory in both planning and evaluating the effectiveness of participatory processes regarding contentious envi- ronmental issues. Another example includes the theory of self-in-place, which has been applied to everything from public participation in informing adaptive environmental management to exploring ways to understand and combat urban sprawl. Thus, in a variety of ways, some environmental communication scholars both apply existing the- ory and generate new theory in efforts to contrib- ute to the empowerment of citizens to act on environmental issues.

Tema Milstein

See also Constructivism; Critical Discourse Analysis; Critical Rhetoric; Critical Theory; Cultural Studies; Culture and Communication; Ideology; Materiality of Discourse; Performance Theories; Phenomenology; Popular Culture Theories; Poststructuralism; Power and Power Relations; Rhetorical Theory

Further Readings

Cantrill, J. G., & Oravec, C. L. (Eds.). (1996). The symbolic earth: Discourse and our creation of the environment. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Carbaugh, D. (1999). “Just listen”: “Listening” and landscape among the Blackfeet. Western Journal of Communication, 63(3), 250–270.

Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication: A Journal of Culture and Nature, 1, 5–20.

DeLuca, K. M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism. New York: Guilford.

Herndl, C. G., & Brown, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Marafiote, T., & Plec, E. (2006). From dualisms to dialogism: Hybridity in discourse about the natural world. The Environmental Communication Yearbook, 3, 49–75.

Milstein, T. (2008). When whales “speak for themselves”: Communication as a mediating force in wildlife tourism. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2, 173–192.

Muir, S. A., & Veenendall, T. L. (Eds.). (1996). Earthtalk: Communication empowerment for environmental action. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

349Epistemology

Oravec, C. L. (1984). Conservationism vs. preservationism: The public interest in the Hetch- Hetchy controversy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 444–458.

Peterson, M. N., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2007). Environmental communication: Why this crisis discipline should facilitate environmental democracy. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1, 74–86.

Pezzullo, P. C. (2007). Toxic tourism: Rhetorics of pollution, travel, and environmental justice. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Rogers, R. A. (1998). Overcoming the objectification of nature in constitutive theories: Toward a transhuman, materialist theory of communication. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 244–272.

Schwarze, S. (2006). Environmental melodrama. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92, 239–261.

Senecah, S. (2004). The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M.-F. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision making (pp. 13–33). Albany: State University of New York Press.

EPISTEMOLOGY

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that considers the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge. The term derives from the Greek lan- guage: episte-me- (knowledge; from epistasthai = know, know how to do) and logos (study of the nature and properties of, logic or theory). Epistemologists ask whether and to what extent knowledge is based on the existence of phenom- ena and/or on human perceptions. Their goal is to provide a general basis that would ensure the pos- sibility of knowledge. A continuum of epistemo- logical assumptions exists, ranging from the perspective that there is an objective “real” truth that humans can discover to the perspective that humans create their own meanings, resulting in the possibility of many meanings for a particular object or event. With respect to human communi- cation theory, every theory includes assumptions about the nature of knowledge and how humans obtain knowledge. Epistemology provides back- ground understanding about how to examine the

interconnections between aspects of human com- munication and the best research protocol to serve as an instrument of knowledge for understanding human communication. Discussions related to processes of scholarly inquiry and theory develop- ment are inevitably grounded in epistemological issues.

History of Epistemology

The philosophical area of epistemology dates back to antiquity. During the 5th century BCE, an ongo- ing debate between various schools existed regard- ing what counts as knowledge and how we come to know what we think we know. The Sophists questioned the possibility of reliable and objective knowledge. Plato rebutted the Sophists by propos- ing the existence of a world of unchanging abstract forms about which it is possible to have exact and certain knowledge through reasoning. Aristotle maintained that almost all knowledge is built from experience. If people think they have a proper knowledge of something, then they know the rea- son or cause of the thing. This requires under- standing an object within a context of explanatory propositions. Pyrrho founded a school of skeptical philosophy in the period following Aristotelian philosophy. The Skeptics maintained that they were inquirers, refusing to acknowledge claims to knowledge unless a criterion of truth could be established. The rival philosophical schools, par- ticularly the Stoics and Epicureans, tried to pro- duce such a criterion—something in experience that had the mark of certain truth. During the Middle Ages, philosophers blended rational meth- ods and faith into a unified system of beliefs, restoring confidence in reason and experience.

The shift to modern philosophy is often taken to be the publication of René Descartes’s Meditations in 1641, since it posits a radical break with the Aristotelian scholastic tradition. During Descartes’s time there was a renewed interest in skepticism. There are several varieties of skepti- cism, including views that there can be no knowl- edge of other persons or other minds, no knowledge of the past, no knowledge of contingent truths, and even the stance that nothing can be known. Descartes sought a sure foundation for knowledge by employing his method of doubt, a form of sys- tematic skepticism, created to ascertain what could

350 Epistemology

not be doubted. Descartes’s systematic skepticism went further than any previous form of skepticism in that he was willing to apply the issue of doubt to himself (the existence of the self as a thinking thing). The culmination of modern philosophy is generally marked by the critical philosophy of Kant in the late 1700s. Kant’s work arose out of an assessment of the shortcomings of both empiricism and rationalism; he synthesized the constructive insights of these philosophies. From the 17th to the late 19th centuries, the main argument in episte- mology was whether knowledge was acquired through reasoning (a priori knowledge) or sense perception (a posteriori knowledge). Rationalists contended that all genuine knowledge of the real world is a priori knowledge. Empiricists argued that all such knowledge is a posteriori knowledge. Other philosophers sought to reconcile these posi- tions, aiming to preserve important features of both rationalism and empiricism. Different episte- mological directions were advanced during the 19th and 20th centuries, including additional inquiry into rationalist and empiricist lines of thought, as well as the emergence of continental and analytic philosophical traditions.

Epistemologists explore and debate the nature of knowledge with a desire to provide an explana- tion for the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge that would make an epistemology immune to skepticism. Epistemology has tradition- ally pursued two different tasks: description and justification. These tasks are not inconsistent and are often connected in the writings of epistemolo- gists. The study of epistemology has generated many debates over these broad tasks, and varying epistemological schools, including empiricism and rationalism, approach description and justification differently.

Epistemological Issues in Communication Scholarship

Communication theorists take as their task the construction of knowledge about human commu- nication. In generating a basis for the possibility of knowledge, epistemologists have identified various forms of knowledge. These include propositional knowledge, which asserts that something is so; nonpropositional knowledge, whereby knowledge of something is gained by acquaintance or direct

awareness; empirical propositional knowledge; nonempirical propositional knowledge; and the knowledge of how to do something. There are controversies about how these forms of knowledge are related and even whether some of these are viable forms of knowledge. Historically, the empir- icist and rationalist schools of epistemology approach the description and justification of knowledge in different ways.

Epistemological Task of Description

The descriptive task aims to accurately depict features of the world, including the human mind, and to determine what kinds of cognitive content ought to count as knowledge. Epistemologists are interested in discerning whether knowledge has foundations and in what sense these foundations may exist. Empiricists objectively begin with the belief that truth or reality is material, independent of feelings, the same for everyone, and external to the human mind. According to empiricists, who identify a posteriori propositional knowledge, sense experience is the foundation of knowledge; all our knowledge must ultimately be derived from our sense experience. Through their senses, people see, hear, taste, smell, and/or touch reality. Our senses do not alter or affect objective reality. Knowledge is assumed to be discovered by humans. Since the 17th and 18th centuries, a posteriori knowledge has been widely regarded as knowledge that depends for its supporting ground on some specific sensory or perceptual experience. Empiricists hold that basic beliefs exhibit knowledge initially gained through the senses or introspection.

Rationalists, who reveal a priori propositional knowledge, claim that human intellect is the foun- dation of all knowledge. This view claims the qual- ity of reasons for one’s true beliefs determines whether those beliefs are converted into knowl- edge. For rationalists, knowledge requires direct insight obtainable through the faculty of reason. They deny foundational propositions and claim that every belief derives some of its justification from other beliefs. In that way, beliefs are mutually reinforcing. Rationalist epistemologies generally assign a greater weight to the set of basic proposi- tions that are more difficult to dislodge. Rationalists assume there are multiple views of reality and

351Epistemology

meanings vary widely. What a person calls reality is a subjective interpretation since individuals have different experiences, values, perceptions, and life situations. For theorists who assume there are mul- tiple legitimate realities, differences in interpreta- tion about knowledge—and therefore human communication—are to be expected.

Fundamentally, the descriptive task of episte- mologists is to seek an account of propositional knowledge, examine how we go about knowing things, and determine what counts as knowledge. Discussions of research protocol in scholarly inquiry address the specific way that scholars gather and analyze information in their attempt to generate and expand knowledge about communi- cation phenomena. How researchers see the world, truth, and human nature influences how they seek to learn about human communication.

Epistemological Task of Justification

The justification task of epistemology aims to understand what kinds of belief can be rationally justified and how they are justified. There exists an association between research methods and research paradigms. The research methods a scholar uses can be seen as a proxy for the epistemological stance he or she adopts. The epistemological stance a communication theorist takes determines how one conducts research, interprets findings, and advances claims. Each epistemological stance holds a different ontological view of humans, most sig- nificantly regarding the extent to which human communication is determined by one’s environ- ment or one’s free will. Positivist and interpretivist epistemologies reflect different views of what it means to be human and the nature of knowledge.

In the positivist epistemological tradition (empiricism), truth is justified as an objective phe- nomenon that can be discovered through careful observation or other scientific methods. Empiricist scholars seek to test communication theory, which appears in the form of universal or covering laws that hold true across time and space in a range of different circumstances. If human behavior is determined by biological and social forces, then we should expect to be able to predict behavior with relative certainty. Positivist epistemology holds that it is possible to explain the world because there is some type of objective truth that exists

apart from our knowing of it. Theories are suffi- ciently general to explain a range of different observations or experiences. By combining or aggregating various research findings, scholars can weave together information about human commu- nication. Objectivity is the quality of being unin- fluenced by values, biases, personal feelings, and other subjective factors when conducting research. People may perceive things differently, but only one perception is consistent with the real world.

The interpretive epistemological tradition (ratio- nalism) seeks to justify knowledge by articulating rules that describe patterns or regularities in human behavior within various contexts or cir- cumstances. Interpretivist epistemologies describe patterns that occur within limited spheres of activ- ity. A particular text may have multiple meanings for researchers (and subjects alike). Interpretivists examine how “what we know” is intimately tied up with “who we are”: truth cannot exist apart from the knower of the truth. The social world is best understood from the point of view of the indi- viduals who are directly involved in the activities that are to be studied. Some epistemologists endorse contextualism in justifying epistemic claims. These contextually basic propositions serve as starting points for inquiry and provide support for other propositions. Contextually basic propo- sitions can vary from context to context and from social group to social group.

The epistemological tasks of description and justification are approached differently by various philosophers. Different schools of thought enhance our understanding of the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge. What theorists know about human communication is grounded in this intellectual discussion.

A scholar’s epistemological assumptions influ- ence the way he or she conducts inquiry and con- structs theories. What counts as knowledge and how knowledge is obtained determines what com- munication scholars posit as theory. While empiri- cists adopt an objective approach to developing communication theory (the truth about human communication is out there to be discovered), rationalists take a subjective approach to research (how people know is directly related to how they understand and act in the social world). Epistemological ground is present in all communi- cation theory, particularly with respect to issues

352 Ethics Theories

such as whether knowledge exists before experi- ence, how knowledge arises, if knowledge is changing or unchanging, if knowledge is best con- ceived in parts or as a whole, and to what extent knowledge can be made explicit or remains tacit. Philosophers wish to know what knowledge is and how it arises, relying on the assumption that the origin of knowledge can assist in understanding the nature of knowledge. Epistemological ques- tions about the nature, scope, and function of knowledge are primary to the development of communication theory.

Pat Arneson

See also Axiology; Inquiry Processes; Linguistic Relativity; Metatheory; Ontology; Philosophy of Communication; Realism and the Received View; Social Construction of Reality

Further Readings

Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory: Epistemological foundations. New York: Guilford Press.

Audi, R. (Ed.). (1999). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cherwitz, R. A. (Ed.). (1990). Rhetoric and philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

ETHICS THEORIES

Theories about ethics attempt to answer the ancient human question, What is good? They are thereby inextricably linked to morals, values, and customs. In fact the words moral and ethics are not only cross-referenced in most English dictionaries, but the word moral comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word ethics, meaning moral character or custom. Throughout history all cultures have developed particular doctrines or philosophies of the good, many of which are classified in the West along four primary albeit overlapping lines: virtue ethics, which locates the good in virtuous character

and qualities; deontological ethics, which locates the good in adherence to duties or principles; teleo- logical ethics, which locates the good in the conse- quences of actions and choices; and dialogic ethics, which locates the good in the relations between persons. During the 20th century, postmodern eth- ics, which developed largely in the West, has called these prior ethical systems into question by chal- lenging the value of rules, procedures, systems, and fixed categories for understanding or theorizing ethics. In the field of communication ethics, schol- ars draw on all these ethical theories to address questions pertaining to issues such as truth, decep- tion, and misrepresentation; propaganda, persua- sion and argumentation; hate speech, harassment, and freedom of speech; secrecy, disclosure, and access; group decision making and institutional and corporate responsibility; ideology, hegemony, and justice; and conflict, diplomacy, and judgment, to name only a few.

Virtue Ethics

Most commonly associated with the 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Aristotle, virtue ethics focuses on the choice, cultivation, and enactment of “virtuous” qualities, such as courage, temper- ance, truthfulness, and justice in both individuals and civic life. In his foundational Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes how virtue is an expres- sion of character in which we become temperate by doing temperate acts. In the Aristotelian sense, then, ethics is a human activity rather than a creed, principle, or goal. Most religious traditions articu- late a number of overlapping virtues, many of which derive in turn from even earlier traditions and cultures. For example, the so-called cardinal virtues of 12th-century Roman Christianity empha- size courage, prudence, temperance, and justice; these were derived from the earlier Greek philoso- phies of Plato and Aristotle, which in turn derive from far earlier Egyptian wisdom literature (circa 3000 BCE). Similarly, the 5th-century BCE parami- tas of Indian Buddhism stress generosity, patience, honesty, and compassion and are derived in part from virtues articulated in Hindu scriptures that originated around 1000 BCE. Further east, in 5th- century BCE China, both Confucianism and Taoism identified virtues such as empathy, reciprocity, and harmony for the cultivation of ethical personal and

353Ethics Theories

civic life. Even the 18th-century American political virtues of Jeffersonian democracy (inscribed in the Declaration of Independence as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) derive in part from the Aristotelian idea of eudaimonia, the happiness caused by living a virtuous life. Outside religious traditions, contemporary Euro-American theorists of ethical virtue, sometimes called neo-Aristotelians, locate virtue variously, for example, in the enact- ment of intentions and motives (Phillipa Foot, Michael Slote); in practical action, or phronesis (Alisdair McIntyre); and in the civic value of emo- tions, especially compassion (Martha Nussbaum).

Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics (derived from the Greek word for duty) is most commonly associated with the 18th-century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant, who constructed a theory of moral reasoning that was based not on virtues, outcomes, or emotions but on duties and obligations. In his book Foun- dations for a Metaphysics of Morals, Kant proposes that ethics is based on a universal law that he calls the categorical imperative. Sometimes mistakenly confused with the Golden Rule (i.e., do unto others as you would have them do unto you), the categor- ical imperative holds that a person should act only on the principles that she or he would want every- one else to always act on. Kant’s so-called universal law is therefore categorical because there are abso- lutely no exceptions under any conditions, and it is imperative because it is a necessary duty to which everyone must adhere. For example, Kant argues that the ethical prohibition against lying is a cate- gorical imperative regardless of whether a seem- ingly greater good, such as saving a life, could be served by lying. In the same work, Kant proposes what he calls the second formulation of the categor- ical imperative, which states that we should never treat people as means to our ends, but always as ends in and of themselves. Other deontological ethical theories include religious and monastic approaches (such as adhering to divine commands, doctrinal principles, and the fulfillment of monastic vows) and social-contract theories based on the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In contemporary Euro-American con- texts, deontologists, also called neo-Kantians, have developed rights-based approaches (e.g., John

Rawls’s theory of justice), discourse-based approaches (e.g., Jürgen Habermas’s discourse eth- ics), and contract-based approaches (e.g., Thomas Scanlon’s contractualism). Significantly for commu- nication, both Habermas’s and Rawls’s theories center on processes of communication from which ethical norms and principles are derived. For exam- ple, Habermas’s discourse ethics prescribes the development and acceptance of rationally grounded validity claims and nontranscendable norms that are produced in democratic argumentation, whereas Rawls’s theory of justice relies on the discursive achievement of overlapping consensus and public reason. Both these approaches have been critiqued on a number of grounds from differing theoretical perspectives, including feminist, postmodernist, Marxist, communitarian, libertarian, and noncog- nitivist. For example, Chantal Mouffe critiques both Habermas’s and Rawls’s theories because they rely on idealized, conceptually impossible, and hyperrational models of deliberative democracy.

Teleological Ethics

Sometimes considered the foil of deontological ethics, teleological (from the Greek word for goal) ethical theories (also known as consequentialist) exercise moral judgments based on the outcomes and consequences of actions rather than on prin- ciples, duties, or virtues. Among the most common ethical theories are utilitarianism and ethical ego- ism. Utilitarianism, associated with the 18th- century British philosophies of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, theorizes that we are ethi- cally bound to do what is best for the most people. According to Mill, for example, actions are good when they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In the contemporary Euro- American context, consequentialist theorists include Peter Singer, who extends utilitarianism to include the good of animals and other beings on the planet; Shelly Kagan, who defends consequen- tialism from critiques by contemporary deonto- logical ethicists; and Amarta Sen, who applies utilitarian ethics to economics, democracy, and public health. Another form of teleological ethics— ethical egoism (which is sometimes called rational self-interest theory)—theorizes that all ethical actions are ultimately self-serving, even those that appear to be self-sacrificing. Some contemporary

354 Ethics Theories

theorists argue an ethical egoist position from a psychological point of view that stresses the emo- tional and social benefits of ethical actions to self, whereas others argue ethical egoism from an evo- lutionary point of view that stresses the genetic and biological benefits to self. Still others argue ethical egoism from a rational point of view that posits that both individuals and society benefit when each individual self benefits. Teleological ethics has been critiqued on a number of grounds from a number of perspectives, most especially the deontological and virtue-based approaches. Martha Nussbaum, for example, argues that consequen- tialist reasoning all too easily leads to a kind of heartless cost–benefit calculation that excludes the full expanses of the ethical.

Dialogic Ethics

Rather than theorizing an ethics based in individ- ual character, duty, outcome, or interest, dialogic ethics locates the ethical in the intersubjective sphere of communicative relationships between and among persons. Associated largely with the work of two 20th-century Jewish European phi- losophers, Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas, dialogic ethics posits ethics as first philosophy wherein the ethical relation with the other, rather than the ontology of the self, is understood to be foundational to human experience. To Buber, the person becomes a person by saying Thou and thereby entering into relation with other persons. The Thou, in Buber’s understanding, is not a monadic subjectivity but a relation of intersubjec- tivity, or development of mutual meaning, that arises from people cohabiting communication exchanges in which understanding arises from what happens in between the subjectivity of per- sons. To Levinas, one’s personal subjectivity can arise only through one’s own responsibility to the other, who is utterly different from oneself and to whom one owes everything. Dialogic ethics thus requires a healthy respect for the irreducible aler- ity, or otherness, of persons with whom one has dialogue, wherein the self never mistakes its own understanding of the other for the other himself or herself. In the context of communication studies, dialogic ethics has generated a rich body of research by contemporary scholars such as Rob

Anderson, Ronald Arnett, Kenneth Cissna, Michael Hyde, and Jeffrey Murray wherein the ultimate issues in communication ethics pertain not so much to words themselves, but rather to the ethi- cal realm in which communication is constitutive of persons, cultures, publics, and relationships. For example, to Cissna and Anderson, dialogic ethics involves an awakening of other-awareness that occurs in and through a moment of meeting.

Postmodern Ethics

Associated largely with late–20th-century Euro- American philosophers such as Zygmunt Bauman, Joseph Caputo, and Michel Foucault, and with feminist ethicists such as Carol Gilligan, Joan Tronto, and Nel Noddings, postmodern ethicists critique so-called modernist and enlightenment ethical philosophies such as virtue, deontological, and teleological ethics. Rather than conceptualize human beings as free, autonomous, independent, and rational agents, as do the modernist theorists, postmodernists view human beings as interrelated, interdependent, contradictory, emotional, and, occasionally at least, irrational social beings. Drawing in part on the 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who crafted a brilliant chal- lenge to traditional religion, philosophy, and morality, postmodern ethicists further reject mod- ernist ideals of certainty, universalism, and essen- tialism, as well as rules, codifications, and systems. In place of ethical rules or precepts, for example, Zygmunt Bauman posits the idea of moral respon- sibility, in which each person must stretch out toward others in pursuit of the good in all situa- tions, even, or perhaps most especially, when what is the good is most uncertain. Thus Bauman cau- tions against certainty, calculation, and precept, arguing that reason alone is an insufficient basis for ethical action. Similarly, feminist ethicists from a range of perspectives, such as Annette Baier’s virtue-oriented ethics and Chantal Mouffe’s Marxist-oriented ethics, critique deontological perspectives such as Rawls’s idea of the priority of the right over the good because it categorically privileges individualistic and abstract rights over collective goods and values. From a somewhat dif- ferent postmodern perspective, Michel Foucault posits ethics as caring for the self through what he

355Ethnography of Communication

calls a practice of freedom. Joseph Caputo, in con- trast, argues against ethics itself and in its place posits the affirmation of the other, the singularity of each ethical situation, and the centrality of the unqualified, unconditional gift that requires pre- cisely those things that are not required. The ideas of moral responsibility, care, and the gift are also central in feminist care-based postmodern ethics, which rather than focus solely on the rights of individuals, focuses on caring responsibilities in relationships. In her book A Different Voice, Carol Gilligan describes an ethic of care in which one is responsive and careful rather than careless with other people. Similarly, Noddings rejects what she calls a peculiarly rational, Western, and male con- ception of empathy and instead describes a process of engrossment, in which one does not objectively analyze or debate ethical situations.

Communication Ethics

In the field of communication, ethicists make use of all the above theories in approaching questions of ethics in interpersonal, intercultural, mediated, institutional, organizational, rhetorical, political, and public communication contexts. Clifford Christians and Michael Traber, for example, take a deontological approach in searching for ethical universals and protonorms across cultures. In con- trast, Josina Makau and Ronald Arnett take a more dialogic approach in a volume on communi- cation ethics and diversity. In contrast, Fred Casmir takes a multiperspectival approach to intercultural and international communication ethics. More recently, Michael Hyde has drawn on the dialogic ethics of Emmanuel Levinas to explore ethical rhe- torical action in personal and public life, and Sharon Bracci and Clifford Christians have brought a wide range of ethical perspectives to bear on a range of communication questions in their book titled Moral Engagement in Public Life.

Lisbeth Lipari

See also Buddhist Communication Theory; Confucian Communication Theory; Deliberative Democratic Theories; Dialogue Theories; Empathy; Feminist Communication Theories; Hindu Communication Theory; Media Ethics Theories; Philosophy of Communication; Public Sphere

Further Readings

Aristotle. (1998). The Nichomachean ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Scribner.

Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (P. Rabinow, Ed.; R. Hurley et al., Trans.). New York: New Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Levinas, E. (1998). Otherwise than being (Alphonso Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nussbaum, M. (1995). Poetic justice: The literary imagination and public life. Beacon Press.

Singer, P. (1995). How are we to live? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION

The ethnography of communication (EOC), origi- nated by linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes, is a field of study fundamentally concerned with the idea that culture and communication are insepara- bly intertwined. Within communication, the shared belief and value systems comprising culture are constructed. And within communication, people build the social structures that comprise their every- day communal way of life. Thus, whenever com- munity members communicate, they display the verbal and nonverbal elements particular to their society while simultaneously creating (and recreat- ing) the value systems that structure that society. By attending, then, to people’s routine communication, many of the core abstract elements that characterize their worldviews or cultural life can be observed, understood, compared, contrasted, and theorized. The EOC offers both theoretical and methodologi- cal lenses in order to illuminate the particular cul- tures of a particular group of people.

356 Ethnography of Communication

History

The ethnography of communication was initially called the ethnography of speaking (EOS) by Dell Hymes in 1962. Hymes’s goal for his approach to the analysis of discourse centered on the role of speech in human behavior. This work coupled two fields of study—linguistics and ethnography. With the interrelationships among language, culture, and society as a traditional anthropological con- cern, Hymes’s proposal diverged from linguistic approaches that, until that time, studied speaking as grammars or abstract linguistic systems. Hymes’s proposal also diverged from ethnographic or anthropological models that traditionally studied culture as geographic boundaries, languages, races, and/or ethnicities. Hymes sought to make speech the object of investigation and rectify the problem of taking it for granted. In 1964, Hymes renamed his perspective the ethnography of communication in order to more expressly account for the context- dependent uses of nonvocal (e.g., drumming and whistling) and nonverbal (e.g., gestures, silence) communication.

In 1992, Gerry Philipsen broadened the EOC by introducing speech codes theory (SCT). SCT offers a communication-based analytic framework designed for describing, explaining, and/or predict- ing cultural communication within the context of speech communities. As an interpretive tool, SCT seeks to answer questions about the existence of codes, their substance, the ways in which they can be discovered, and their social force on the mem- bers of cultural communities. Ultimately, the study of codes serves to describe the sets of precepts and rules by which different societies enact and inter- pret their ways of life. In other words, SCT helps reveal how people feel and talk about what is going on in their collective lives. It helps bring to light, for example, what identities and interper- sonal relationships community members can and do construct, how community members relate to their physical (natural) and metaphysical (spiri- tual) environment, and how different peoples approach uses of time.

Since its inception, the EOC has resulted in hun- dreds of studies applied across a variety of con- texts, including family, leisure, and organizational life; online communication; broadcast media; and myriad other oral and written applications. Over

time, the EOC has been subject to criticisms not dealing with matters of power in social interaction. Indeed, the EOC does not advocate prejudging the incidence of particular social meanings (e.g., power and status) prior to examination of the situated interaction in question. To do so would undermine the community-based, culture-rich description the EOC calls for. Because this is a point that has too often been misunderstood, it should be under- scored that the EOC can and does take power into account when it is made obvious by speech com- munity members themselves. In such cases, ethnographers must remain open to hearing, describing, interpreting, and reporting on perfor- mances of power. For example, Philipsen’s critique of a controversial speaking event involving Chicago mayor Richard Daley unveils key power-laden rules for the conduct of public discourse. Further, in a study combining the ethnography of commu- nication and critical Whiteness theory, Patricia Covarrubias demonstrates how silence-mediated discrimination against American Indian college students is enacted in some college classrooms, thereby exposing power-laden structures.

Assumptions

The EOC operates according to particular assump- tions. These assumptions reveal what practitioners study and how they study it—what, from a given perspective, counts as evidence, how evidence is interpreted, what generalizations are made about communication and communicators, and, ulti- mately, how those generalizations are written and presented. The EOC includes the following assumptions:

1. Communication can be described in terms of systems of rules. Community members make com- munication choices beyond grammar. They make choices based on what is appropriate in their sociocultural contexts. For example, blue-collar workers in Chicago, who acknowledge their speech contrasts with Standard English, deliberately use their speaking practices to garner valued in-group memberships. In fact, community members’ attempts to adopt Standard English often are inter- preted as symbolic moves to reject their group of origin.

357Ethnography of Communication

2. People are users of symbols, and the particu- lar configuration of symbols nestles the structures of sociocultural life. For example, using the Spanish pronouns usted (formal you) or tú (informal you) can help create relationships based on hierarchy or along more democratic alignments in many Latino contexts.

3. Communication is patterned. Even though an individual’s personality and personal idiosyncra- sies can influence communication choices, much, if not most, of human communication is structured. By and large, people’s daily lives comprise many communication sequences that are repeated across contexts during the course of a routine day (e.g., what counts as polite and impolite ways for addressing others; what is the expected order of conversation in classes, at business meetings, or during doctors’ appointments or religious services; and what favorite words or jargon routinely come up in conversation).

4. Communication is distinctive. What resources are available for performing communication, how communication is performed, and how communi- cation is valued differ across sociocultural contexts. For example, the Koasati language of Louisiana provides no word for good-bye, thus suggesting a place to inquire about how interpersonal separa- tions are viewed in this culture. Extending compli- ments between European-American communicators would most likely be considered a friendly move, whereas this might not be the case with some Chinese or Japanese communicators, whose norms about modesty would prompt them to feel uncom- fortable in the same situation.

5. Communication is socially consequential, and people bear the consequences of breaches to the normative structures defined by a given soci- ety. For example, a European-American man who uses talk to resolve conflicts rather than using physical aggression could be evaluated as homo- sexual by some blue-collar workers in Chicago.

6. Communication is strategic, and conversants can and do artfully use verbal and nonverbal codes as cultural resources within which to achieve indi- vidual and group outcomes. Having a drink with a romantic partner every evening to talk over the day and meeting with the same group of friends for lunch regularly to blow off steam are two

examples of using verbal and nonverbal codes as resources. In such situations, everyday communi- cation rituals involve getting together with the same people and generally talking about the same topics and using the same tone, and with each shared conversation, relationships among partici- pants become either closer or more distant. In these particular cases, episodes of communication, involving a sequence of actions, are used in cultur- ally preferred ways to reaffirm a sense of self and a sense of relationship through talk.

7. Communication is not absolutely determined by culture or group. Because, as Hymes noted, speech communities are organizations of diversity, people are free to circumvent, challenge, and revise communicative patterns. For example, some con- struction workers in Veracruz, Mexico, resist adhering to their community’s generally agreed on norms for using pronouns; young employees expressly use the informal tú with elders, a practice that in earlier decades would have been seen as very disrespectful.

The EOC as Theory and Method

The EOC’s theoretical call, ultimately, is the description of a people’s means of communication and the meanings these strategies have for those who use them. As a theoretical lens, the EOC seeks to generate explanations about how, in the particu- lar case, community members use particular com- munication symbols (e.g., words, phrases, silences) to make sense of their experiences. Listening for these symbols enables ethnographers (and others) to isolate the sets of ideas that inform a commu- nity’s worldview. Theorizing includes identifying the rules for social behavior—prescriptions (what is allowed) and proscriptions (what is not allowed)—that shape the interpersonal structures of communities.

The EOC’s methodological call, ultimately, is the abstraction of an emic (culture specific, insider- focused) descriptive framework. This outcome is possible via the ethnographer’s engagement through participation, observation, and interviews in the field within particular communities. That is, the EOC requires the researcher to join a particular group to study the group’s culture. In a way of speaking, the ethnographer works “from the

358 Ethnography of Communication

inside,” to be better poised to investigate naturally occurring communication patterns in the course of community members’ everyday activities. To iso- late patterns, the ethnographer listens and watches for who says what to whom, where, how, why, and for what social objectives. By examining these patterns, the ethnographer can then extract themes and other details that will serve as evidence for articulating a coherent statement about the par- ticular community’s culture.

Speech Communities and the EOC

If, as Hymes proposed, culture should not be delin- eated by a geographic region, a language, an eth- nicity, or a race, then what should be the unit of observation? In 1968, Hymes offered an alterna- tive unit of observation—the speech community. He defined speech community as a group of people who share at least one code or system of rules for enacting and interpreting their own and others’ communicative conduct.

Codes, as defined by Philipsen, are historically transmitted, socially constructed systems of sym- bols and meanings, premises and rules that pertain to communicative conduct. That is, the compo- nents of codes, which inextricably are woven into communication itself, are the observable expres- sions of beliefs of existence (what is and is not) and of value (what is good and bad). Codes comprise the inspectable infrastructure that orients a peo- ple’s real time, communicatively based social behaviors.

Moreover, participants within speech communi- ties reveal themselves to be users of multicodality. In other words, members of speech communities use multiple codes to conduct their daily lives. For example, construction workers in Veracruz, Mexico, routinely use two codes of communication— the code of confianza (code of trust, confidence, honesty, confidentiality) and the code of respeto (code of respect). Workers used these distinctive and contradictory paradigms to manage their interpersonal networks and, in turn, negotiate workplace cooperation.

According to Hymes, communication practices should be studied according to the following basic social units—communicative situation, communi- cative event, and communicative act. Additional elements such as particular words, social dramas,

narratives, and even silence are available for the ethnographer to investigate.

Communicative situation is the general context of the communication. A communicative situation maintains a more or less consistent frame for observing and interpreting the particulars of com- munication. Examples include a class in school, a birthday party, a committee meeting, a court trial, a religious service, a dentist appointment, or a din- ner with friends.

Communicative events are locally defined con- texts for communication that occur, generally, within communicative situations. Communicative events constitute entry points for ethnographic analysis as they suggest unified sets of components (e.g., the same setting, the same participants, the same general topic, and the same rules for interac- tion). Examples include a conversation between friends during a birthday party, a call to worship during a religious service, or the opening and clos- ing at a conference. It is during communicative events that sociocultural rules surface and can be inspected.

Communicative acts refer to the use of language to do or perform some act, to bring about some reality in the world. Examples of speech acts include commands, promises, requests, warnings, threats, compliments, apologies, suggestions, gos- sip, cursing, joking, and declarations of marriage. Speech acts help identify meaningful contexts for action in particular cultures. For example, cursing and swearing might be appropriate at a bar or a construction site, whereas this behavior would not be as acceptable during the delivery of a eulogy. Each context would suggest different interpersonal meanings.

Thematized terms are words that become core symbols for particular communities. Core terms or words point to concepts whose meanings are shared by community members. These terms point to places for action that are significant and relevant to the particular community members and indicate very important shared attitudes, feelings, and per- spectives. For example, for the Israeli Sabra com- munity member, the term dugri defines a type of communication that is immediate, blunt, and frank and expresses disagreement. The concept also is used as a cultural element to affirm a particular group identity. The particular Sabra communica- tors set themselves apart from other interactants

359Ethnography of Communication

because they can and do establish common ground by speaking dugri to each other.

Personal address involves the expressions speak- ers use to point to self and other in interaction. Because personal address inherently invokes rela- tionships among communicators, this serves as uniquely rich means for accessing cultural mean- ings. Personal address can include a variety of options and a variety of combinations of options. Each possible configuration conveys different mean- ings depending on the context. For example, titles might be followed by a last name (e.g., Mr. Smith) in a boardroom or by a first name in a kindergarten classroom (Miss Jenny) to show respect. Nicknames are very prevalent in Mexican societies to indicate intimacy and friendship. Honorifics (e.g., san) are common in Japanese cultures to show respect (e.g., okaasan, or mother). Honorific titles are common in many societies (e.g., Dr., Your Honor, Madame President) to showcase the importance of status and authority. Occupational titles (e.g., Arquitecto [Architect] and Contador [Accountant]) are com- mon in cultures where people set themselves apart by attaining a formal education.

Social dramas are communicative sequences in everyday life wherein the local sociocultural rules for behavior are invoked and publicly challenged. A social drama also can involve the alienation or integration from a social group of the person whose conduct is brought into question. An exam- ple of a social drama is the sex scandal involving president Bill Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky when the president’s sexual conduct was chal- lenged by an entire nation. Another example is the controversial event involving accusations of nepo- tism against Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

Narratives, or stories, are sequential accounts that are told from a particular point of view. These are useful sites for hearing culture, especially when these narratives are told and retold. The fact that the stories are retold suggests that they are impor- tant and probably entail cultural significance. A narrative that is part of European-American folk- lore is that of Horatio Alger. Horatio Alger stories are rags-to-riches narratives that are told and retold to illustrate how impoverished persons might be able to achieve the American Dream. These stories embody American cultural values about hard work, determination, and concern for others.

Silence is the absence of oral speech. Because silence, like speech, also is subject to a community’s rules for appropriate conduct, silence offers rich possibilities for gaining insight into what is going on in a particular context. Many American Indian students, for example, use silence very differently from many of their European American counter- parts. For Native students, silence often is genera- tive or productive and positive, and they use this communication resource to shape individual and group identities, connect with other community members, and promote a traditional way of life.

SPEAKING as Device for Locating Codes

In 1974, Hymes introduced an etic (universal, researcher-centered) descriptive framework designed to guide the uncovering, understanding, and description of communicative patterns in any cul- ture. Culture-specific communication patterns, an emic (culture-specific, insider-focused) framework, could be abstracted within these categories. Under the mnemonically coded acronym SPEAKING, the etic framework comprises eight social units useful for describing patterns of communication and for isolating cultural themes—scene or setting (physi- cal arena and/or psychological situation); partici- pants (persons involved in the interaction and their relationships to each other); ends (purposes and outcome of the interaction); key (tone or manner in which the communication is enacted); instrumen- talities (channels or codes of communication); norms of interaction and interpretation (rules for how one should behave and rules for ascertaining what the particular behavior means); and genre (categories or types of speech acts and events).

The framework is not intended as a mechanical checklist. Rather, it is intended to provide an initial set of questions to guide the discovery and subse- quent accounting of a community’s ways of life as reflected and constituted by its way of communi- cating. SPEAKING also serves as a useful tool for making sociocultural comparisons.

Conclusion

As a theory and a method, the EOC seeks to expose the cultural systems of meaning making— including the tensions and contradictions—that orient a people’s everyday communal life. Dedicated

360 Ethnomethodology

to the production of nuanced understandings, the EOC centers inquiry squarely on communication. Moreover, the communication studied is that of the particular people producing it. A focus on locally produced communication helps reveal how interactants use verbal and nonverbal codes to achieve particular personal and social outcomes. It also helps describe how community members affirm, challenge, and/or transform their cultures by changing their ways of communicating. Finally, the EOC helps create cross-cultural understand- ings via comparative analyses and theories.

Patricia Olivia Covarrubias Baillet

See also Critical Ethnography; Cultural Performance Theory; Culture and Communication; Social Construction of Reality; Social Interaction Theories; Speech Act Theory; Speech Codes Theory

Further Readings

Braithwaite, C. (1990). Communicative silence: A cross- cultural study of Basso’s hypothesis. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 321–327). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carbaugh, D. (1989). Fifty terms for talk: A cross- cultural study. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 13, 93–120.

Covarrubias, P. (2002). Culture, communication, and cooperation: Interpersonal relations and pronominal address in a Mexican organization. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Covarrubias, P. (2007). (Un)biased in Western theory: Generative silence in American Indian communication. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 265–271.

Covarrubias, P. (2008). Masked silence sequences: Hearing discrimination in the college classroom. Communication, Culture & Critique, 1(3), 227–252.

Fitch, K. (1998). Speaking relationally: Culture, communication, and interpersonal connection. New York: Guilford Press.

Fong, M. (1998). Chinese immigrants’ perceptions of semantic dimensions of direct/indirect communication in intercultural compliment interactions with North Americans. Howard Journal of Communications, 9, 245–262.

Hymes, D. H. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. G. Gladwin & W. C. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–53).

Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.

Hymes, D. H. (1968). Linguistic problems in defining the concept of “tribe.” In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the problem of tribe: Proceedings of the 1967 annual spring meeting of the American Ethnological Society (pp. 23–48). Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Philipsen, G. (1992). Culturally speaking: Explorations in social communication. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Philipsen, G. (1997). A theory of speech codes. In G. Philipsen & T. Albrecht (Eds.), Developing communication theories. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Philipsen, G. (2000). Permission to speak the discourse of difference: A case study. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 33, 213–234.

ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

Ethnomethodology is an empirical study of folk or ethno methods of practical action and practical reasoning that examines the cultural and linguistic competencies and practices used in everyday life, from quite mundane practices such as forming a line and buying groceries to specialized practices such as forming the social bases of scientific research. Founded by American sociologist Harold Garfinkel in the 1950s and 1960s, ethnomethodol- ogy soon inspired a variety of scholars and studies that, by the mid-1970s, had established a radically new research program, not only within American sociology but within an ever-increasing interna- tional and interdisciplinary context as well.

Influences and Impacts

Ethnomethodology draws from such diverse resources as classical sociological theory, social phenomenology, linguistic phenomenology, ordi- nary language philosophy, and Gestalt psychology. Influenced especially by the social phenomenology of Alfred Schutz, Garfinkel and others created a

361Ethnomethodology

tradition of inquiry that quickly developed beyond the boundaries of phenomenology, while retaining important phenomenological interests and orienta- tions. Schutz extended the sociology of knowledge to include the study of commonsense knowledge, and this became a foundational insight for eth- nomethodology as well as for the development of social constructionism by Schutz’s students Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. The phenomeno- logical technique of suspending or bracketing one’s natural experience in order to subject this experi- ence to analytic study also became a crucial move in ethnomethodological studies.

The emphasis on the centrality of language use, interpretation, and communication sets eth- nomethodology apart from much conventional sociology. Even in comparison with scholarship in linguistics and communication studies, where issues of language and communication are central, the ethnomethodological understanding of language and communication can still be quite distinctive. Despite its distinctiveness, ethnomethodology’s emphasis on social practices and language use is at least generally consistent with broad shifts in con- temporary philosophy, social science, and humani- ties, referred to as the culture turn, the linguistic turn, and the practice turn, that share an emphasis on questions of meaning, interpretation, and agency. Therefore, it is understandable that eth- nomethodological insights have been taken up within such traditions as sociological theory, socio- logical and sociolinguistic ethnographies, various communication studies, pragmatics and discourse analysis, and other specialized subdisciplines or research programs such as social problems analysis and discursive psychology.

Focus on Practical Interaction

Ethnomethodology analyzes methods of practical action and practical reasoning, including language use, as they are observable in social interaction. Ethnomethodology typically examines specific courses of action or talk-in-interaction within spe- cific settings, and it does so in much closer detail than is found in inductive or quantitative analysis. It understands mundane, vernacular methods of practical action and practical reasoning as founda- tional for social order and social science, deserv- ing of study in their own right. By contrast, other

varieties of social science are understood to rely unreflectively on these practical methods, taking them for granted and treating them as uninterest- ing. Ethnomethodology’s focus on people’s practi- cal understandings and actions in local contexts is not a variety of individualism or subjectivism, as is sometimes claimed, but rather draws attention to the importance of shared, intersubjective meth- ods for understanding and acting. This approach is not an alternative to the study of social structure but involves an alternative conceptualization of social structure, centered around the insight that the properties, meanings, and relevances of social structure are socially accomplished by people within social interaction.

Ethnomethodological Interests in Language and Meaning

Indexicality

Indexicality was addressed prior to eth- nomethodology by scholars such as Edmund Husserl and Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and refers to the contextual or embedded nature of meaning. Ethnomethodology expanded previous scholarship on indexicality, observing that the meaning of talk and texts is irredeemably indexical, always relying for its specific sense on unstated knowledge of rel- evant context.

Talk as Practical Action

John Searle achieved much recognition for his treatment of speech acts, drawing on the ordinary language philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and especially J. L. Austin’s discussion of performatives— utterances, such as “I promise,” that perform actions. Ethnomethodology radically generalizes this insight, emphasizing the thoroughly practical nature of language use. Thus language is under- stood in terms of language use, and language use is recognized as a primary type and medium of social interaction and social action.

Accountability

The literature on accounts, including such social actions as excuses and justifications, has become a significant topic in interpretive sociological studies of deviance. Ethnomethodology has applied a

362 Ethnomethodology

much broader interest in accounting and account- ability to all social phenomena, not just those problem occasions in which excuses and justifica- tions become relevant. A broader understanding of accountability refers to the fact that speech and actions are produced and perceived methodically and conventionally, in terms of shared and mutu- ally intelligible categories for making sense of social interaction and communication.

Documentary Method of Interpretation and Reflexivity

Another aspect of ethnomethodology in matters of sense-making and practical reasoning is sug- gested by its interest in what Garfinkel called the documentary method of interpretation, extending a notion from Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowl- edge. This refers to a common type of practical inferential reasoning by which an underlying pat- tern is understood on the basis of certain parts, or vice versa. Certain elements come to be treated as documents of a perceived underlying pattern that both organizes and is organized by the understand- ing of its particular elements. Thus, for example, questions and answers are understood with refer- ence to each other and to the context and purposes in and for which they occur. The context itself is understood with reference to the questions and answers taking place “within” it. The hermeneutic circle is a similar insight popularized by Hans- Georg Gadamer and others. Ethnomethodology’s interest in the documentary method of interpreta- tion is much closer to empirically available, prag- matic social action and interaction than were previous contributions in the sociology of knowl- edge and hermeneutic thought.

The ethnomethodological notion of reflexivity draws attention to the fact that descriptions partly constitute their own referents and contexts, rather than standing as independent, neutral reportage. For example, descriptions of personal schedules often perform the role of prompting or preempting invitations, actually creating and managing the schedules which are being described. The rela- tional methods of reasoning emphasized in eth- nomethodology’s treatments of reflexivity and the documentary method of interpretation stand in stark contrast to traditions of research or theory that treat social phenomena as having discernible,

definitive meanings independent of each other and independent of context and independent of prac- tices of description, as is often presupposed in causal explanation.

Programs of Research

Ethnomethodology was accompanied by the devel- opment of conversation analysis, founded by Harvey Sacks, whose strikingly original approach to the order of naturally occurring talk and texts was one of the forms taken by early ethnomethod- ology. Both the sequential analysis of conversation, associated with contemporary conversation analy- sis, and the analysis of talk and texts emphasizing the practical use of identity categories, as in mem- bership categorization analysis, remain meaning- fully rooted in ethnomethodological insights and initiatives.

On other fronts, ethnomethodological studies have progressed along a variety of lines, often related to studies of work and institutional inter- action, making significant contributions, for example, to social studies of scientific knowledge, the study of computer–human interaction, the study of communication in educational settings, and the operation of rules and laws in human ser- vice agencies and legal settings. These examples merely suggest some of the clusters of eth- nomethodological scholarship. Additional studies address such varied topics as improvisational jazz piano, human–animal communication, ethnic identifications in Thailand, and Tibetan philo- sophical discourse. Given the vast breadth and variety of members’ methods of practical action and practical reasoning and their foundational importance for social interaction and social sci- ence, ethnomethodological studies will continue to inform a broad variety of scholarly inquiries and professional endeavors, even as they remain a distinctive minority interest within any particular discipline or professional field.

Tim Berard

See also Accounts and Account Giving; Conversation Analysis; Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA); Phenomenology; Pragmatics; Social Construction of Reality; Social Interaction Theories; Speech Act Theory

363Evaluating Communication Theory

Further Readings

Button, G. (Ed.). (1991). Ethnomethodology and the human sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Douglas, J. (Ed.). (1970). Understanding everyday life. Chicago: Aldine.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

Heritage, J. (1978). Aspects of the flexibilities of natural language use: A reply to Phillips. Sociology, 12, 79–103.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford, UK: Polity.

Taylor, E. (1989). Language and the study of “shared cultural knowledge.” In D. Helm, W. Anderson, A. Meehan, & A. Rawls (Eds.), The interactional order (pp. 215–230). New York: Irvington.

EVALUATING COMMUNICATION THEORY

Scholars use several criteria to evaluate theories in order to establish their contribution to the body of knowledge and usefulness. This entry summarizes several evaluative criteria and provides a measure of the overall qualities of a good theory.

Evaluation Criteria

Theoretical Scope

Scope refers to the comprehensiveness or breadth of a theory. Although theories vary in coverage, some level of generality is necessary for a theory to have value. In other words, a theory must explain events beyond a single observation. One can explain an observation, but that explanation is not theoretical if it does not apply to other observations as well. In other words, a theory must cover a range of events. The more observations that a theory cov- ers, the better the theory is judged to be.

A theory can have two types of generality. The first is the extent of a theory’s coverage. If a theory

addresses a wide spectrum of topics, it has value in helping us understand characteristics that span many aspects of communication. For example, a theory might explain how people create meaning in all forms of communication. Because the topic of meaning is so broad and covers such a wide spectrum of events, the theory would help us understand many things about communication in all its forms.

The second type of generality applies a narrow concept across many situations. The theory in this case would not address very many topics but would be widely applicable across many situa- tions. For example, a theory might explain attitude change, a relatively narrow topic applicable in many kinds of communication, from interpersonal exchanges to media campaigns. Such theories have power because they explain something in many different kinds of situations.

Good theories can possess either of these types of generality. In applying this criterion, the critic looks at the usefulness of the theory in explaining a range of experiences. Does it have an appropriate level of generality? Is its coverage so narrow that it is not very helpful or so broad that it is meaning- less? To whom is the theory’s breadth most rele- vant? A theory that looks very narrow from one vantage point may actually turn out to be quite useful to certain scholars and practitioners who work in a relatively limited field. For example, general communication scholars may find a theory of early childhood communication development too narrow to help understand communication processes across the life span, yet early childhood specialists may find the scope of such a theory just right for the kind of work they do.

Consistency

The criterion of consistency refers generally to the coherence or fit between a theory’s philosophi- cal assumptions and substantive claims. Are the theory’s concepts and explanations consistent with the theory’s assumptions? For example, if a theory assumes that genetics and learning determine behavior, then it leaves little room for individual human choice. We might question such a theory’s appropriateness in making claims about decision making, since deterministic premises cannot lead logically to decision-making conclusions.

364 Evaluating Communication Theory

Appropriateness is related to the language used in theoretical statements. For example, the term decision making implies weighing options and making choices, while the term behavior does not necessarily imply choice. On the other hand, if a theorist claims that behavior is determined by pre- vious events, then he or she would be perfectly consistent in making behavioral predictions.

Theoretical publications are not always explicit about a theory’s philosophical assumptions. Often these need to be inferred from the various state- ments and claims within the theory, leading to the need for internal consistency among claims and explanations. Also, we get insight into a theory’s premises by the methods used to verify it. For example, case studies are often used to verify theo- ries that rely on differences among situations, while experimental studies are often used to verify theories that make causal predictions across situa- tions. If a critic perceives that the methods used to test the theory are inconsistent with the claims of the theory itself, he or she might fault the theory on the grounds of consistency.

Heuristic Value

A heuristic is a tool that helps set direction, solve problems, or suggest ideas. A theory can be valuable if it leads to further ideas for research and additional theory development. Theories in the social sciences are rarely ends in themselves but serve to suggest fruitful avenues for investigation and concept development. Scholars may ask the questions, Where can we go with this theory? Where does it lead us in our investigations? A theory that is helpful in this way is said to have heuristic value.

A theory has heuristic value if it suggests new ways to look at old variables, provides new hypotheses to test, points to fresh situations to investigate, or opens new fields of practice. A the- ory may have validity in that it seems true but does little to promote ongoing scholarship. Such a the- ory would fail the heuristic test.

Validity

Validity is the extent to which a theory is “true.” However, truth can be measured in a variety of ways, so validity is really a great deal more than

simple truth. Depending on the type of theory, validity can be assessed in three ways.

The first form of validity is the correspondence between the theory’s claims and observations. If the theory corresponds with what people have observed in their research, it is said to be valid in this sense of the word. Indeed, one of the primary functions of research is to test the validity of theories, or, conversely, to lead to theoretical claims that are valid by establishing a correspondence between research results and theoretical claims. This first form of validity is traditional and commonly used. It is perhaps the only form of validity recognized in mainstream sciences. However, social sciences typi- cally use theory for reasons to explain concrete reality, requiring an expansion of the criterion.

The second form of validity is generalizability, or scope, as defined above. A theory is valid if you can predict outcomes in new situations based on claims developed from research in known situations. Sometimes called predictive validity, this standard values theories that accurately predict what will happen in a situation that has not yet been exam- ined. If an experiment results in outcomes expected based on the theory, this experiment adds weight to the validity of the theory. However, a theory does not have to predict a cause–effect relationship to be generalizable. A theory might explain that people use a certain type of expression in certain kinds of situations. When this is apparent in a case previ- ously not studied, validity is at work.

Third, validity can refer to the utility or useful- ness of a theory. A theory can be said to have practical validity, which means that it is valuable for some use. This is the primary form of validity applied to practical, as opposed to predictive, the- ories. Here the critic asks, Does this theory help us achieve an important goal? Does it highlight cer- tain ideas that help us understand or navigate a challenging life situation? Does it identify the dimensions of situations that should be taken into account when engaging in a certain practice? Does it describe certain outcomes that might be possible and thereby help us identify our goals?

Obviously, a theory may have more than one type of validity. We already know that every theory should have some level of generalizability. In addi- tion to this, however, the theory may display corre- spondence and utility. In general, the more a theory can do, the better that theory is judged to be.

365Evaluating Communication Theory

Parsimony

Parsimony is logical simplicity or theoretical elegance. A theory that reaches a claim in a few simple steps is superior to one that reaches the same claim through a longer chain of logical steps. Stated differently, a theory’s power is increased when it can reach its conclusions with just a few key concepts rather than many. If a theory is par- simonious, it has gotten to the bottom of things quickly: It has identified the most basic explana- tory variables or mechanisms. It predicts a lot from just a little.

Like all the criteria, however, parsimony is rela- tive. A theory should be logically simple, but not simplistic. A good theory reduces complex experi- ences to a manageable and understandable set of factors without losing the richness and complexity of human experience. A theory may be highly par- simonious but in the process lose much of its heu- ristic value. It may be parsimonious but not very generalizable. The theory may be so parsimonious that it is closed and resistant to productive change.

Openness

Although the classical ideal for a theory in science is to be final and closed—answering all questions—in many branches of the social sci- ences, openness is held as a higher value. Even in physics, which aims to end itself by producing a Theory of Everything, many scientists know this is unrealistic and always want openings for the next step. Thus a good theory is actually tentative and open to new extensions. A good theory acknowl- edges that it is incomplete.

Theories can be open in three ways. They may invite development through intension, or develop- ment of more detail within particular concepts; by extension, or development of additional concepts; and by revolution, meaning that there are ques- tions the theory cannot answer, and when these are addressed, entirely new concepts come to light.

Making an Overall Judgment

Although these six criteria provide a set of measur- ing sticks, a good theory integrates these and emphasizes those most relevant to the goals of the

theory. If a theory is successful, it will have several characteristics:

1. The theory will provide new insights. It will not belabor the obvious but lead scholars to see phenomena in ways they might not otherwise have considered. Studying a theory, or producing one, as the case may be, leads the scholar to gain new ideas.

2. The theory will be conceptually interesting. It will provide insights that are fascinating to contemplate.

3. The theory will develop over time and evolve from one set of concepts to a better, more useful set. It has a history and a literature attached to it. It continues to attract interest and new contributors.

4. It is a collaborative product. It has developed as the result of numerous contributions by various scholars. One person may be responsible for providing a key or central idea in the theory, but the theory has gotten better over the years by teams of scholars working together.

5. The theory is durable. It passes the test of time. It is not easily abandoned. Even after its heyday, the theory is still taught because its concepts are useful.

Stephen W. Littlejohn

See also Metatheory; Theory; Traditions of Communication Theory

Further Readings

Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Validity and the research process. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008) Theories of human communication (9th ed.; pp. 26–28). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Penman, R. (1992). Good theory and good practice: An argument in progress. Communication Theory, 3, 234–250.

Shapiro, M. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 491–500.

Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

366 Existentialism

EXISTENTIALISM

Existentialism is difficult to define. This is due, in large part, to the fact that although it was con- ceived as a serious philosophical doctrine, it has been frequently vulgarized to the level of some loosely related styles of writing or, worse yet, to a fad, so that the existentialist label gets applied to authors or ideas that are only remotely, if at all, connected to existentialist philosophy. More sig- nificantly, a further complication derives from the fact that, as is the case with so many philosophies, the ideas proposed by various existentialist think- ers often do not share any one cardinal point. For example, Martin Heidegger, one of the major voices of the existential philosophy, vehemently chides Jean-Paul Sartre, a giant of existentialist thinking in his own right, for misunderstanding the term existence and thus debasing the label existentialism to mean some kind of nihilistic view on life and human history. Moreover, even when existential philosophers draw on the same author as a common source of their thinking, they dis- agree so substantially over the interpretation of this source that the end products are hard pressed to form a coherent system of thought.

Despite all the differences among existentialist thinkers, however, there is nevertheless a core theme around which their respective works orbit, a theme that gives what is called existentialism a recognizable contour and helps gather diverse writings as parts of a distinct philosophical per- spective. This theme—also known as one of the battle cries of a general philosophical revolt taking place in Europe during the early decades of the 20th century—can be stated as follows: Existence precedes essence. If existentialism has made any significant contribution to philosophy, this contri- bution can be measured by what this statement means to suggest.

The relation between existence and essence is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. To say that something exists is simply to point to the fact that “it is.” Existence is therefore characterized by concreteness and particularity, in short, by a sheer givenness. The idea of “essence” is different in a significant way from that of the “givenness” that defines existence. If the existence of something has to do with the fact that “it is,” the essence of that

something consists in “what it is.” The essence of an object, a silver dollar, for example, is consti- tuted by the specific characteristics that make this object, this silver dollar, one kind of object rather than another. Seen in this way, essence is something that lends itself to rational thought, to analysis, comparison, and synthesis, in ways that the sheer particularity and “thatness” of existence do not.

As the statement “existence precedes essence” suggests, existentialism prioritizes existence and conceives of essence as derivative or secondary. In contrast to rationalist thinking, which exalts exis- tence at the expense of essence, existentialism begins by emphasizing the fact of existence—the undeniable fact that there is something rather than nothing. This emphasis is meant by existentialists to drive home two ideas that challenge what they take be a type of anemic thinking characteristic of idealist philosophers, most notably Plato and Georg Hegel. First, existence is not to be under- stood as a property, as the point one makes when one says that “height” is the property of a tall per- son; second, the priority of existence over essence must be affirmed when one makes the metaphysi- cal distinction between reality and appearance, if only because, as Kierkegaard, following Kant, argues, no concept of a given object entails the existence of that object. Put simply, while essences are something that can be thought about, existence is a fact that has always and already taken place, and being a fait accompli, it cannot be wished away. Existence, as existentialists would say, is irreducibly factual; it is the very datum, the first principle, from which philosophical reflections begin and in which they should finally end.

Now, it should be noted that by existence, exis- tentialists do not mean something being there in the abstract. Rather than designating a general concept arrived at by abstracting what is common to all that appears, existence here means— exclusively and precisely—individual existence or, we can say, existence grasped according to one’s inalienable individuality. This emphasis on the individual follows from existentialists’ insistence that existence be approached and comprehended from the first-person perspective. This perspective opens a new vista of philosophical exploration in two ways. On one hand, it constitutes the indi- vidual as a legitimate category of philosophical reflection; on the other, it calls for confronting and

367Expectancy Violations Theory

rethinking the individual according to the horizon of possibilities that defines his or her identity, that is, not in terms of contingent sociocultural deter- minations but in terms of the individual’s funda- mental truth as an ongoing engagement with what lies ahead of him or her. Unlike an object, a chair, which is simply and indifferently there, an indi- vidual exists concretely. The individual exists con- cretely in the sense that his or her existence is lived by himself or herself only—lived, that is, in the singularity of a life that is his or her own, and about which he or she cannot but be concerned in the most intimate manner.

Existentialism highlights the concept of agency as it relates to the human condition. Existence means living and acting in the world. By extension, to act is to make a choice; action is always the outcome of choice making. This is the case, not simply because we make choices all the time, but because we cannot avoid doing so; indeed, even when we refuse to make a choice, the refusal is nonetheless a choice. In this sense, choice making is always of the self, in that a choice is always made by the self and for the same self as well. Because one must make a choice on one’s own and because the choice made is for oneself only— although the choice made might have consequence for others—one is essentially responsible for one- self and for the choices one has made. Moreover, because one is responsible for oneself as one responds to one’s own calling to make a choice, one must be considered free. According to existen- tialism, in the strict sense, humans are essentially free, for no one can prevent us from making choices. Or, as existentialists phrase it aptly, we are “condemned” to freedom. In existentialism, free- dom and existence collapse into each other in the figure of the individual who, willingly or not, must be held responsible for himself or herself.

Existentialism is one of the major movements in philosophy of the 20th century. Although its fun- damental tenets have been challenged by subse- quent developments such as structuralism and critical hermeneutics, the deep analyses of the human condition made by existentialists have con- tinued to fascinate writers and artists working across the spectrum of the humanities. From Fyodor Dostoyevsky to Albert Camus, from Edvard Munch to Mark Rothko, the theme of human free- dom and anguish in existence can be found across

literary and artistic expressions in our own time. As made clear by existentialism, the question of existence is one that comes to us all, even if we try to repress it. In existentialism, philosophy meets life in its bare truth. To understand existentialism, one must read existentialist philosophers. When we read these philosophers, we might not find any consolation for the difficulties we face in life, but we will not fail to find the truth—the all too cruel truth—of who we are and why we cannot but face a future that is solely of our own making.

Briankle G. Chang

See also Hermeneutics; Ontology; Phenomenology; Philosophy of Communication

Further Readings

Blackham, H. J. (1959). Six existentialist thinkers. New York: Harper & Row.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. S. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

Sartre, J.-P. (1956). Being and nothingness (H. Barnes, Trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.

EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS THEORY

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) was devel- oped by Judee K. Burgoon and several colleagues to predict and explain the impact of unexpected communication behavior. Inspired partly by Michael Burgoon’s linguistic-based expectancy theory and by Robert Rosenthal’s expectancy sig- naling work, it originated as a theory of the effects of interpersonal proxemic violations. It has subse- quently been expanded to cover other forms of nonverbal and verbal communication violations.

Key Concepts

Expectations are enduring cognitions about the anticipated verbal and nonverbal communication of others. Expectations are comprised of two com- ponents, the social and the idiosyncratic. At the social level they encompass the roles, rules, norms, and practices that typify a given culture, commu- nity, or context. At the idiosyncratic level, they

368 Expectancy Violations Theory

encompass person-specific knowledge related to another’s typical communication practices. Predictions for any given individual, message, or transaction rely on a combination of generic expectancies and any individuating knowledge of how the actor’s behavior deviates from those gen- eral patterns.

Expectations derive from three classes of vari- ables: actor, relationship, and context. Actor vari- ables refer to characteristics related to individuals, such as their gender, age, or country of origin. For example, women are expected to stand closer to one another than are men; people who are similar in age are expected to stand closer together than pairings of younger and older. People from “con- tact” cultures are expected to stand closer together than are those from “noncontact” cultures.

Relationship variables refer to characteristics jointly defined by two or more individuals, such as their status, familial relationship, or attraction. When two people are of equal status, they expect to stand closer to one another and use more mutual gaze than when there is a status difference; in the latter case, the more deferential individual may stand at a more respectful distance and avoid direct eye contact. In parent–child relationships, proximity is expected to be closer than in stranger interactions. Likewise, interactions between people who like one another are expected to be character- ized by closer proximity and more eye contact than are interactions between people who dislike one another.

Context variables refer to features of the setting and the type of interaction in which communica- tion takes place. Seated interactions have different expectations from standing ones. So do formal interactions relative to informal ones.

The combination of all these factors yields a net expectation for what communication practices are normative. Rather than being a fixed value such as a particular distance or percentage of eye gaze, expectations take the form of a range of behavior that is customary. An expectancy violation occurs when another’s behavior falls outside this range and is sufficiently deviant to be noticed. Sometimes violations are registered consciously. Other times, the behavior may fall outside a given limen, or perceptual threshold, and still not be noticed at a conscious level. In these cases, whether an expec- tancy violation has occurred or not falls into a gray

area. It may be inferred only from changes in another’s behavior that it precipitates.

Expectancy violations are given a valence from positive to negative. The valence is partly governed by communicator reward valence. Reward valence draws from traditional rhetorical views of communicator ethos, in which communicators are evaluated according to character, competence, composure, sociability, and dynamism (among other dimensions of credibility), and from B. F. Skinner’s models of reinforcement learning, in which the positive or negative consequences of an act affect subsequent responding. According to EVT, receivers assess (albeit usually unconsciously) the net reward value that a communicator holds for them. Reward valence is influenced by the same classes of factors that influence expectations, such as a person’s gender, age, communicator style, status, and attractiveness.

Three other relevant concepts are arousal- distraction, interpretation-appraisal, and violation valence. These are incorporated into the predic- tions that are made.

Predictions

EVT predicts that violations are arousing—they elicit psychological and/or physiological activation— and distract a recipient’s attention from the osten- sible main topic of conversation and toward the source of the violation. Violations should cause more arousal and distraction than expectancy con- firmations (i.e., conforming to the expected behav- ior pattern).

As sense-making organisms, humans are next predicted to engage in a two-stage interpretation and appraisal process. They attempt to assign meaning to the violation act itself. Does, for exam- ple, a personal-space violation mean that the per- petrator is being aggressive or ingratiating? They also appraise the act as desirable or undesirable. Is close proximity wanted or unwanted? In both cases, the interpretation and the appraisal may be moderated by who is committing the violation. For example, a move closer by a very attractive mem- ber of the opposite sex may be “read” as a sign of interest and may be quite welcome. The same move by a repulsive individual may be “read” as sexual harassment and may be quite unwelcome. The net result of this process, which may occur

369Expectancy Violations Theory

almost instantaneously, is a valencing of the viola- tion itself as positive or negative.

The final step of the theory is predicting the effects of expectancy violations relative to nonvio- lations. Positive violations are predicted to pro- duce more favorable outcomes than are positive confirmations; negative violations are predicted to produce more negative outcomes than are negative confirmations. The theory makes a strong point that the comparison of interest is not between positive and negative violations but between posi- tive violations and positive confirmations or nega- tive violations and negative confirmations. In other words, it makes the counterintuitive claim that violations are sometimes better than doing what is expected (when the violation is a positive one). The theory also calls attention to the prospect of violations’ actually being positively valenced, unlike the common claim that violations are by definition negative.

The theory also can apply to positive confirma- tions of behavior, in that expectations and com- municator reward valence should be influenced by the same variables as in the violation case, and the interpretation-appraisal process should still take place. However, the intensified reactions due to arousal and distraction are missing in the confir- mation case.

Empirical Support

Initial tests of the theory focused on violations of conversational distance and predicted that close violations exceeding a very close threshold called the threat threshold would have negative conse- quences regardless of who committed them. However, the results did not support the existence of a threat threshold. The theory was then revised, and the role of violation interpretation became more prominent. Tests of arousal established that both close and far violations elicited arousal, and

tests of positive-violation and negative-violation predictions garnered support for such violations as proximity, eye gaze, immediacy, involvement, touch, and posture. The theory has been applied to persuasion, adaptation patterns in interpersonal interaction, intercultural interactions, deception, and group decision making.

Judee K. Burgoon

See also Cognitive Theories; Deception Detection; Immediacy; Interaction Adaptation Theory; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Learning and Communication; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Proxemics

Further Readings

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48.

Burgoon, J. K. (1995). Cross-cultural and intercultural applications of expectancy violations theory. In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 194–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79.

Burgoon, J. K. & Walter, J. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265.

EXTENDED PARALLEL PROCESS MODEL

See Campaign Communication Theories; Persuasion and Social Influence Theories

371

FACE NEGOTIATION THEORY

The face negotiation theory, developed by Stella Ting-Toomey, explains the culture-based and situ- ational factors that shape communicators’ tenden- cies in approaching and managing conflicts. The meaning of face is generally conceptualized as how we want others to see us and treat us and how we actually treat others in association with their social self-conception expectations. In every- day interactions, individuals are constantly mak- ing conscious or unconscious choices concerning face-saving and face-honoring issues across inter- personal, workplace, and international contexts. Although face is about a claimed sense of interac- tional identity, facework is about verbal and non- verbal behaviors that protect-save self, other, or mutual face.

The researching of facework can be found in a wide range of disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, management, international diplomacy, and human communica- tion studies, among others. The concept of face has been used to explain linguistic politeness rituals, apology acts, embarrassment situations, requesting behaviors, and conflict interactions. The root of the face negotiation (FN) theory was influenced by Hsien Chin Hu’s 1944 anthropological essay “The Chinese Concept of Face,” Erving Goffman’s 1955 sociological article “On Face-Work,” and Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s 1987 linguistics monograph on “Politeness.”

The foundational concepts of the FN theory first appeared in Ting-Toomey’s 1985 article “Toward a Theory of Conflict and Culture.” In a subsequent article in 1988, “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory,” the formal version of the theory became available—with five core assumptions and 12 theoretical propositions stating the relationship between individualism- collectivism and different facework interaction styles. In 1998, a second rendition of the FN the- ory with seven assumptions and 32 propositions was published in an essay on “Facework Compet- ence.” Based on the results of several large data sets, a third version of the FN theory appeared in 2005 in “The Matrix of Face” and contained an updated 24 FN theoretical propositions.

Core Assumptions and Face Orientations

The seven core assumptions of the FN theory are as follows: (1) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (2) the concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or identity-vulnerable situ- ations when the situated identities of the commu- nicators are called into question; (3) the cultural value spectra of individualism-collectivism and small-large power distance shape facework con- cerns and styles; (4) individualism and collectivism value patterns shape members’ preferences for self- oriented face concern versus other-oriented or mutual-oriented concern; (5) small and large power distance value patterns shape members’

372 Face Negotiation Theory

preferences for horizontal-based facework versus vertical-based facework; (6) the value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, and situ- ational factors, influence the use of particular face- work behaviors in particular cultural scenes; and (7) intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.

Cultural Membership and Face Concerns

Self-face concern is the protective concern for one’s own identity image when one’s own face is threatened in the conflict episode. Other-face con- cern is the concern for accommodating the other conflict party’s identity image in the conflict situa- tion. Mutual-face concern is the concern for both parties’ images and the image of the relationship. Whether we choose to engage in self-face protec- tion or mutual-face protection often depends on our ingrained cultural socialization process, indi- vidual trait tendencies, and embedded situational factors.

More specifically, for example, in a direct empirical test of the theory by John Oetzel and Ting-Toomey in 2003, the research program tested the underlying assumption of the FN the- ory that face is an explanatory mechanism for cultural membership’s influence on conflict behav- ior. A questionnaire was administered to 768 participants in four national cultures: China, Germany, Japan, and the United States in their respective languages asking them to recall and describe a recent interpersonal conflict. The major results of the study are as follows: First, cultural individualism-collectivism had direct effects on conflict styles, as well as mediated effects through self-construal and face concerns. Second, self-face concern was associated posi- tively with dominating style, and other-face con- cern was associated positively with avoiding and integrating styles. Third, German respondents reported the frequent use of direct-confrontative facework strategies; Japanese reported the use of different pretending and accommodating strate- gies and minimize the severity of the conflict situ- ation; Chinese engaged in a variety of avoiding, accommodating, and third-party appeals’ tactics;

and U.S. Americans reported the use of up-front expression of feelings and remaining calm as con- flict facework tactics.

Within the pluralistic U.S. sample, multiethnic research by Ting-Toomey and her co-researchers in 2000 has also uncovered distinctive conflict inter- action styles in relationship to particular ethnic identity salience issues.

Although previous research studies have focused on testing the relationship between individualism- collectivism value dimension and facework strate- gies, recent research effort has focused more on unpacking the small and large power distance value spectrums with particular facework practice.

Face Threatening Process Conditions

It seems that when an individual’s face image is being threatened in a conflict situation, she or he would likely experience identity-based frustration, emotional vulnerability, anger, hurt, and even ven- geance. The threats to face can be on a group membership level or an individual level.

In the 2005 FN theory version, the following conditions were posited concerning the valence direction of an intercultural face threatening pro- cess (FTP): First, the more important the culturally appropriate facework rule is violated, the more severe the perceived FTP. Second, the larger the cultural distance between the conflict parties, the more mistrust or misunderstanding cumulate in the FTP. Third, the more important the conflict topic or imposition of the conflict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe the perceived FTP. Fourth, the more power the conflict initiator has over the conflict recipient, the more severe the perceived FTP by the recipient. Fifth, the more harm or hurtful the FTP produces, the more time and effort is needed to repair the FTP. Self-face concern becomes incre- mentally more salient if several of these conditions are present in an FTP.

For example, individuals are likely to move toward self-face saving and in-group face-saving emphasis as they perceive the escalation of the vari- ous face threatening conditions directed at them or their in-groups. Cultural assumptions, individual personality tendencies, and situational pressures frame the underlying interpretations of what count as a severe face threatening interaction episode.

373Face Negotiation Theory

Individual, Situational, and Facework Competence

Individual Personality Factors

The term self-construal was coined by Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama in 1991 and is concerned with one’s self-image as emphasizing either an independent or an interdependent self. The independent construal of self involves the view that an individual is a unique entity with an individuated repertoire of feelings, cognitions, and motivations. In comparison, the interdepen- dent construal of self involves an emphasis on the importance of in-group-relational con- nectedness and intertwined interdependent fate focus. Self-construal is the individual-level equiv- alent of the cultural variability dimension of individualism-collectivism.

In individualistic cultural communities, there may be more situations that evoke the need for independent-based actions. In collectivistic com- munities, there may be more situations that demand the sensitivity for interdependent-based decisions. The manner in which individuals conceive of their self-images should have a profound influence on the expectancies of what constitute appropriate and effective responses in diverse facework situa- tions. Both dimensions of self also exist within each individual, regardless of cultural membership identity.

For example, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey in 2003 found that independent self-construal is associated positively with self-face concern and the use of dominating-competing conflict strategies. Interde- pendent self-construal, on the other hand, is asso- ciated positively with other-face concern and the use of avoiding and integrating conflict tactics. It would appear that independent self-construal fos- ters the use of up-front and low-context demand- ing interaction responses, while interdependent self-construal emphasizes circumspective and high- context yielding interaction patterns.

Situational Appraisal Factors

Two other possible factors that moderate the activation of an independent versus an interde- pendent self are situational role appraisal and in-group–out-group distance factors. Situational role appraisal factors can include the degree of

formality of the conflict setting, the interaction climate of the situation, the role relationship between the conflict participants, and the per- ceived goals of the facework negotiation process. To illustrate, the role-appraisal process can include an assessment of the role expectancies between the conflict parties such as professional role identities and other salient group membership and personal identity concerns. For example, Rebecca Merkin in 2006 integrated small-large power distance value dimension to the individualism-collectivism value dimension in explaining face threatening response messages and conflict styles in multiple cultures. She found that high-status individuals from large power distance cultures tend to use both direct and indirect facework strategies to deal with face threatening situations—depending on whether they were delivering positive or nega- tive messages. Thus, an accurate assessment of the culture-based situational factors that frame face- work strategy usage can be critical in promoting competent conflict management outcome.

Furthermore, many relational distance factors are important in competent facework negotiation. One of the key factors would be the intricate rela- tionship between in-group–out-group conceptual- ization and facework strategy enactment. For example, according to Ting-Toomey and Jiro Takai in 2006, the broad-based in-group category in the Japanese language can be further refined into inner- intimate in-group members and familiar in-group members. Likewise, the broad-based out-group category can be further fine-tuned into familiar out-group members and peripheral out-group members. In the archetypical form, appropriate facework rituals can be suspended in the inner- intimate in-group category or the peripheral out- group category. Instead, deep heart-to-heart talks can exist in the former category, and indifferent facework tactics can permeate the latter category.

Facework Interaction Competence

The factors in the situational role and the rela- tional distance processes have a strong impact on facework interaction competence in different cul- tural communities. A competent facework negotia- tor would need to increase his or her awareness concerning self’s and other’s cultural and individ- ual facework conditioning process. An optimal

374 Facework Theories

degree of facework competence emphasizes the integration of culture-sensitive knowledge, mind- fulness, and adaptive communication skills. Culture-sensitive knowledge is considered as the most important component that underscores the other components of facework competence. Without culture-sensitive knowledge, conflict par- ties cannot learn to uncover the implicit ethnocen- tric lenses they use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural conflict situation. Without knowl- edge, negotiators cannot reframe their interpreta- tion of a conflict situation accurately from the other’s cultural frame of reference. In-depth cul- tural knowledge can lead to some truly “aha!” intercultural learning moments.

These aha moments coupled with mindful reflections can help an individual to develop con- structive conflict skills and build competent inter- action capacities. To be a mindful interpreter of intercultural conflict, individuals must develop a holistic view of the critical factors that frame the face negotiation process of a conflict situation. According to Ting-Toomey in 1999, mindfulness means attending to one’s internal assumptions, cognitions, and emotions and at the same time, becoming attuned to the other’s conflict assump- tions, cognitions, and emotions. To be mindful of intercultural differences, individuals have to learn to see the unfamiliar behavior from a nonjudgmen- tal, nonreactive standpoint. Mindfulness can be practiced through a deep state of listening with an uncluttered mind. To cultivate competent face- work consciousness, communication skills such as mindful reframing, mutual face validation, de- centering, adaptive code switching, and dialogue bridging skills are all needed to connect the culture-based knowledge with the transformative, respectful facework practice.

Stella Ting-Toomey

See also Conflict Communication Theories; Cross- Cultural Communication; Cultural Types Theories; Facework Theories; Intercultural Communication Competence; Intercultural Communication Theories

Further Readings

Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test

of the face-negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599–624.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflicts: A face- negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face- negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 217–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face- negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.

FACEWORK THEORIES

Physical faces are one of the primary means by which we distinguish individuals. In facework theories, however, instead of referring to one’s physical face, the word face is a metaphorical allu- sion to one’s desired social identity or image(s). One’s metaphorical face is manifested through communication. Researchers have coined a vari- ety of words to represent different types of face- work, including: face-honoring, face-threatening, face-saving, face-protecting, face-building, face- depreciating, face-giving, face-negotiating, face- compensating, face-restoring, face-neutral, and face-constituting. Facework theories, largely grounded in Erving Goffman’s writings on face- work and Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s model of politeness, have been used to examine communication practices in multiple contexts.

Origins and Definitions of Facework

Goffman’s 1955 publication, “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction,” in which he explicitly linked communication prac- tices and facework, is often credited as the origin of facework theories about communication in the United States. Goffman referenced publications on

375Facework Theories

face from Chinese and American Indian perspec- tives published between 1894 and 1954. In one of these publications, Hsien Chin Hu linked the word face to two Chinese concepts: mien-tz , for the kind of prestige that comes from personal suc- cess, and lien, for the regard bestowed upon an individual by a group based on his or her moral reputation. Through a series of illuminating con- trasts, Yu-tang Lin noted that face is psychological not physiological; not washed or shaven, but granted, lost, fought for, and given as a gift; intan- gible, but nonetheless regulates interactions; invis- ible, yet shown in public; governed not by reason, but by social conventions; not purchased with money, but the most prized possession. Goffman conceptualized face as a public image (line) that is performed in front of others, an image that is con- sistent with approved social values and rules for social interaction.

Even though face is often treated as a psycho- logical concept, as though the face of an individual is distinct from the face of others, it may be more accurate to conceptualize face as a sociological or interactional concept. Scholars have argued that face does not reside in the body or personality of an individual, but in interactions of communica- tors and the meanings assigned to those interac- tions. Individuals do not own fixed, unchanging faces; rather faces are coconstructed and recon- structed in social interactions. The specific rules for honoring one’s own face or the face of others can vary from culture to culture, group to group, or context to context. The word work is appropri- ate in reference to face because face is dynamic and ever changing, and one has to work to create and maintain desired faces. The phrase impression management, as a descriptor of one type of face- work, also indicates that maintaining or enhancing images requires labor; face is something communi- cators “manage.” Unfortunately, there are also some individuals who work at threatening the face of others, as in conflicts between rivals and nega- tive political advertisements. Still, most of the scholarship on facework has focused on its posi- tive applications.

Politeness as One Type of Facework

Brown and Levinson developed a model of polite- ness grounded in Goffman’s notion of face. Brown

and Levinson maintained that humans possess two face-wants: the desire to have one’s actions unim- peded (negative face) and the desire to be liked by others (positive face). Other scholars have described these desires as the need for autonomy and the need for approval. Tae-Seop Li and John Waite Bowers further subdivided the desire for approval into two, leading them to identify three types of face: fellowship face, the desire to be included; competence face, the desire to be respected; and autonomy face, the desire not to be imposed upon.

Brown and Levinson conceptualized politeness as a redress to a face threatening act (FTA). Utterances that honor one’s autonomy or compen- sate for an imposition on autonomy (e.g., “If you are not too busy, I would really appreciate your help on party preparations”) are called negative politeness, while utterances that expressed positive regard for the listener are called positive politeness (e.g., “Thank you for being such a great friend”). A single utterance can contain both negative and positive politeness (e.g., “Could I please have one of your fabulous cookies?”).

Although the means for fulfilling the desires of autonomy and approval vary culturally, Brown and Levinson argued that the desires themselves are universal. Other scholars called into question whether the need for autonomy is a universal desire and demonstrated that face-needs may con- flict. For example, requests were defined as inher- ently face threatening in that they imply a desire to impose on another, to threaten the addressee’s autonomy. However, these definitional assump- tions ignore other possibilities. Requests can also be signals for increasing intimacy and trust, which in turn can honor one’s approval and competence face-desires.

Facework in Multiple Contexts

A review of the book in which Brown and Levinson’s work first appeared was published in Philosophy and Rhetoric in 1980. In the early 1980s, scholars in the discipline of communi- cation conducted research on accounts for failures, compliance-gaining, and politeness using Brown and Levinson’s model. Since then, there have been many extensions and applications of facework theories to communication.

376 Facework Theories

Beyond Politeness

Facework encompasses more and is more complex than politeness. Although politeness is aimed at meeting the autonomy, solidarity, and competence face-desires of others (other-face), facework can be threatening, as well as honoring, and it can be directed toward oneself (self-face), as well as oth- ers. Mutual-face is concerned with the face-desires of speakers and hearers and their relationship. Facework includes avoiding FTAs (e.g., criticizing, complaining, disagreeing, cursing, insulting, inter- rogating, stereotyping, stigmatizing, drawing attention to mistakes or limitations, challenging, demanding acquiescence, refusing a request or offer), as well as engaging in such acts. Confessions, apologies, and admissions of vulnerabilities can be simultaneous FTAs for the speakers and face- honoring or face-compensating acts for certain kinds of listeners. Celebrations of successes can be face-honoring, unless they are viewed as bragging or disrupting harmony by singling out individuals or by implying criticism of others, in which case they become face threatening. Finally, the face one tries to claim for oneself may not be the same face recognized or granted by others. Facework involves dialectical tensions in which participants balance each other’s face-desires along the continuums of autonomy-inclusion and dignity-humility.

In addition, some scholars have maintained that face should not be conceptualized as belonging to an individual or as being encoded and decoded through a single utterance, but rather as something that is created interactionally. Victoria Chen describes an interconnected enactment of face for both the host and guest through her explication of the accomplishment of mien-tz and keh chee (guest spirit) at the Chinese dinner table. Her analysis also demonstrates a paradox; in order to meet the posi- tive face-desires of both the guest and the host to be perceived as valued and competent, the host has to violate the guest’s negative face (desire for autonomy) by insisting that the guest eat more. In his Face Constituting Theory, Robert Arundale noted that face is conjointly coconstituted in inter- action. For example, an utterance such as “That’s a nice dress” is understood as a compliment, as a positive face act when it is followed by “Thanks,” but as a request, a negative face threat, when fol- lowed by “You can’t borrow it.”

Facework in Various Communication Practices

Facework is associated with a wide range of com- munication practices. In explorations of autonomy, researchers have used facework models to look at advice, compliance gaining, conflict, demands, instruction, negotiation, and requests. In investiga- tions of solidarity desires, researchers have exam- ined emotional expressiveness and responsiveness, empathic or supportive messages, relational devel- opment and decay, gratitude, invitations, listening, and offers. Competence desires are addressed in research about affirmations, appreciative inquiry, blame, compliments, criticisms, feedback, praise, and tact. In recognition of social rules regarding social status and other relational expectations, facework has included examinations of deference, demeanor, and respect. Studies that focus on accounts, apologies, denials, excuses, and explana- tions have included information about repairing damage to face. Facework has been associated with a wide range of emotions, including affection, anger, anxiety, contempt, embarrassment, fear, hurt, joy, pride, regret, and shame.

Some researchers have hypothesized gendered differences in facework. They reasoned that males would be more concerned with the desire for auton- omy, while females would focus more on the desire for inclusion. Further, males and females were expected to vary in their attention to competence- face depending on whether a competency was linked to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity. The findings from research on gender and facework are mixed, with stronger differences found in beliefs about gendered behavior than in the behavior itself. One explanation for the incon- sistency in the findings is that males and females sometimes occupy different social roles, which carry rights and obligations that may influence facework more than gender itself.

Communication researchers have studied face- work in multiple contexts across different types of relationships, in life and in fiction. Interpersonal scholars have investigated facework in the commu- nication of strangers, acquaintances, close friends, intimate partners, and family members. Communi- cation that supports face-desires has been associ- ated with greater trust, liking, satisfaction, and commitment in relationships. Facework among

377Family and Marital Schemas and Types

peers and individuals varying in organizational stature within the workplace has been the focus of several studies. In educational contexts, researchers have found that teachers and students engage in facework throughout the educational process from instruction, to feedback and evaluation, to the negotiation of grades, and that when the facework is skillful, it facilitates learning. Other investiga- tions probed the place of facework in delivering bad news, crisis negotiations, and 911 calls. The significant role of facework in conflict resolutions has been the subject of extensive research and theo- retical development by Stella Ting-Toomey and her associates in a theory called face negotiation theory. This theory gives considerable attention to the place of individualistic and collectivistic cultural values in facework, as well as one’s view of oneself as relatively independent or interdependent.

Most of the scholarship applying facework theories to communication practices has focused on interpersonal, educational, or organizational encounters, but Kathy Domenici and Stephen W. Littlejohn illustrate the relevance of facework to community and global issues, including its central role in bringing about peaceful resolutions to con- flicts between nations. Drawing upon their own work and that of others, Domenici and Littlejohn stress the importance of various aspects of face- work: building face, inquiring appreciatively, look- ing for positive resources for change, taking risks, delaying responses, focusing on issues rather than blame or credit, and reframing problems as oppor- tunities that lead to new ways of seeing and acting. They suggest that just as an individual’s face is not a static entity, but a dynamic construction, rein- forced through communication practices, so too are the faces of communities and nations. Facework can be found in all communication encounters.

Susan B. Shimanoff

See also Face Negotiation Theory; Impression Management; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Politeness Theory; Rules Theories

Further Readings

Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of

Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 2, 193–216.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). London: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, V. (1990/1991). Mien tze at the Chinese dinner table: A study of the interactional accomplishment of face. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24, 109–140.

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Domenici, K., & Littlejohn, S. W. (2006). Facework: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements of social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213–231.

Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46, 45–64.

Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415–450.

Lin, Y. (1935). My country and my people. New York: The John Day Company.

Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.). (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. Albany: State University of New York Press.

FAMILY AND MARITAL SCHEMAS AND TYPES

The way people think about and act in marital and family relationships can be represented in terms of schemas and types. On the individual level, schemas determine communication behav- iors in these relationships and a person’s psycho- logical and behavioral responses to these relationships. On the social level, typologies show how laypersons and scholars perceive of and evaluate relationships. Together, schemas and types play an important role in conducting and interpreting marital and family relationships.

Family and Marriage Schemas

Mental schemas are generally defined as cognitive structures representing some concept (or object)

378 Family and Marital Schemas and Types

that contain acquired knowledge of the attributes and functions of the concept. In other words, men- tal schemas are patterns of simultaneous activation of knowledge bits stored in long-term memory that together represent a coherent representation of the concept or object. Thus, relationship schemas in general are mental representations of relationships, and family and marital schemas specifically are mental representations of one’s familial and mari- tal relationships, respectively.

Structure of Schemas

Research specifically on relationship schemas has defined them further as interrelated pieces of declarative and procedural knowledge about relationships that reside in long-term memory. Declarative knowledge is defined as descriptive knowledge of the attributes and features of things, whereas procedural knowledge refers to a person’s knowledge of if-then contingencies that often take the form of interpersonal scripts or memory orga- nization packets, which are memories of how to do things.

The declarative and procedural knowledge con- tained in relationship schemas overlaps with three subsets of knowledge that, in other areas of psy- chology, are considered to be more or less indepen- dent: the self-, other-, and relational-schema. A self-schema contains knowledge about the self, including knowledge of one’s thoughts and emo- tions, goals and plans for the future, and memory of past experiences. An other-schema contains knowledge about the other that mirrors knowl- edge of self in that it includes representations of the other’s thoughts and emotions, goals and plans for the future, and past experiences. The main dif- ference is that, depending on how well one knows the other, other-schemas are more limited than those of self. Finally, relational-schemas contain knowledge of past and future interactions with others. They include knowledge of experienced and expected interaction sequences between self and other used to interpret and to plan behavior. Although self and other schemes traditionally were thought of as independent, recent research on inter- personal cognition strongly suggests they are so highly interdependent on one another that they more likely belong to the same cognitive structure— the relationship schema.

Like many other schemas, relationship schemas consist of knowledge that exists at three levels of generality. The most general level is general social knowledge that applies to all interpersonal rela- tionships. Examples of such knowledge include beliefs and pragmatic rules that apply to all inter- actions, such as the norm of reciprocity or the need to be truthful and relevant when communicating. Because it applies to all relationships, knowledge at the general social level is part of any relationship schema. At the second level of abstraction is relationship-type knowledge that includes knowl- edge specific to the type of relationship one has, such as romantic partner, coworker, sibling, and best friend. The knowledge stored at this level is different from that stored at the general social level in that it only applies to relationships of the spe- cific type. It is at the relationship-type level that cultural knowledge, such as rules and norms for specific types of relationships, are stored. The most specific and least abstract level is relationship spe- cific. Knowledge at this level applies to only the particular relationship a person has with one spe- cific other person. Such knowledge includes mem- ories, attributions, and experiences made within the context of that particular relationship and allow individuals to adapt their thoughts, behav- iors, and interpretations to that specific relation- ship partner. These specific relationship beliefs, including those related to one’s family, are what make each relationship unique and distinguishable from other relationships.

The knowledge contained at the relationship- specific level is different from the knowledge that exists at more general levels, and a person’s com- plete mental representation of a relationship com- bines knowledge from all three levels. Thus, similarities or overlap of mental representations of relationships with different persons are the result of shared knowledge drawn from either the gen- eral social level or the relationship-type level. By contrast, differences in mental representations of relationships with different persons are due to information contained either at the relationship- type or relationship-specific level. As a rule, if knowledge at different levels of generality con- flicts, the more specific knowledge takes precedent. Consequently, there must be a process that deter- mines which information is retrieved and used in relational information processing. This could be a

379Family and Marital Schemas and Types

sequential process in which relationship-specific knowledge is accessed first, relationship-type knowledge second, and general social knowledge last. An equally plausible alternative that is more consistent with notions of parallel information processing in the brain is a recursive or iterative process that accesses knowledge at all levels of specificity simultaneously and that assigns more specific knowledge primacy over more general knowledge if there is a conflict between them. A similar process could be involved when storing relationship experiences in memory. Truly unique experiences are stored at the relationship-specific level, whereas experiences that are made with sev- eral others are stored at the relationship type or the general social level, respectively.

Content of Schemas

In regard to content, one can expect a fair degree of similarity between marriage and family relationship schemas. Obviously, relationship- specific knowledge is highly dependent on the actual persons constituting the relationships and thus varies widely between different marriages and families. Knowledge at the relationship-type level, however, which is much more dependent on cul- ture and the norms and rules of a speech commu- nity, shows significant overlap between individuals. Furthermore, within individuals, marital, and fam- ily relationship schemas also overlap, not the least because marriage is, of course, a family relation- ship. Research investigating the content of marital schemas, for example, has shown that it contains beliefs related to ideology of marriage, relationship between individuals and the institution of mar- riage, relationship between the couple and the outside world, gender roles in marriages, commu- nication behaviors, expression of positive and negative affect, conflict and problem-solving behav- iors, the sharing of space and time, child-rearing practices, and spiritual aspects of the relationship.

Research on the content of family schemas is somewhat more limited, but it suggests similar knowledge to that of marriage schemas, such as communication norms and rules, parenting, con- flict and problem solving, sharing of emotions, cohesion and adaptability, and decision making. Also, the family schema is somewhat more com- plex than the marriage schema because it contains

knowledge at the relationship-specific level that is associated with multiple family members, whereas the marriage relationship schema only incorpo- rates the relationship-specific knowledge associ- ated with one other person.

Functions of Schemas

Schemas function to direct attention to specific aspects of one’s environment, help interpret stim- uli, guide the retrieval of information from mem- ory, and store new information in memory. Thus, schemas play a central role in information process- ing and how persons understand and act in their (social) worlds. It follows that relationship sche- mas, such as marriage and family schemas, organize a person’s knowledge of these relationships and play an important role in the cognitive processes that precede, accompany, and follow interpersonal communication in these relationships. As such, they also play an important role when scholars try to explain and predict interpersonal communica- tion in these relationships.

Marriage and Family Types

Whereas marriage and family schemas refer to coherent mental representations of these relation- ships that exist as cognitive structures within indi- viduals, marriage and family types are symbolic representations of these relationships used in lay or scholarly discourse—that is, relationship typologies are classifications of relationships imposed by out- side or participant observers. If the observers are scholars, the purpose is to get a better understand- ing of and to theorize about relationships by group- ing them based on some sort of characteristic(s), such as structural properties, composition, process, or outcome. If the observers are laypersons or par- ticipants, the purpose is also understanding, predic- tion, and evaluation, although in a less formalized and often implicit manner. Also, the purpose for lay-persons is application of this knowledge in their social environment and their own relationships, whereas the interest of scholarly observers is often more theoretical than practical. Despite their diver- gent interests and the formalized process by which scholars construct and use typologies, there is a substantial amount of overlap between scholarly and lay typologies. This is probably because both

380 Family and Marital Schemas and Types

scholars and laypersons use typologies to explain the same phenomena within the same social context.

Types of Typologies

Typologies are fundamentally sense-making devices, and humans have the propensity to associ- ate structure with function. Consequently, many typologies of marriages and families are based on structure and/or membership that imply some important differences in how these relationships function or the outcomes they produce. For mar- riages, examples include first and remarriages, interracial, homosexual, dual-career, long-distance, interfaith, and childless marriages. Examples for family typologies include step, blended, and patch- work families; single-parent; interracial; intergen- erational; interfaith; same-sex parent; and interfaith families.

Other typologies focus on characteristics more ostensibly important to researchers, such as out- comes for couples and children. Much of early research on marriages and families, for example, was based on comparing satisfied (i.e., enduring) versus dissatisfied (i.e., divorcing) marriages and families that had well-adjusted children versus families with children that showed evidence of maladjustment, such as delinquency, criminality, or social and academic problems. The shortcoming of such typologies, however, is that they assume that either all structurally similar relationships have similar outcomes, or that all outcomes are arrived at through similar means—and empirical evidence supports neither assumption.

Recognizing these limitations, other typolo- gies, especially those developed by communica- tion scholars, have focused on processes and communication behaviors to distinguish mar- riages and families. The more successful typolo- gies focus on communication behaviors that affect several outcomes of interest, not just on satisfac- tion, stability, and child adjustment. These more complex typologies also recognize that the pro- cesses that define types associated with positive outcomes in one domain (e.g., satisfaction) are not necessarily associated with positive outcomes in other domains (e.g., adjustment). Examples for such marital typologies include John Gottman’s typology based on conflict styles that identifies

three functional couple types (validating, volatile, and avoidant) and two dysfunctional styles (hos- tile and hostile-detached).

An example for family types is family commu- nication patterns theory, developed by Mary Ann Fitzpatrick, Ascan Koerner, and their colleagues, which classifies families based on their conversa- tion and conformity orientation as either consen- sual (high in both), pluralistic (high conversation, low conformity), protective (low conversation, high conformity), or laissez-faire (low in both). An increasing body of research has shown that family types differ in a number of significant outcomes, including child social and academic adjustment, resiliency, and child mental health; family satisfac- tion; family social support; and family violence and abuse. In addition, these families also differ predictably in how they communicate in specific domains such as conflict, problem solving and decision making, and expressions of positive and negative affect.

Ascan F. Koerner

See also Cognitive Theories; Family Communication Theories; Interpersonal Communication Theories; Relational Communication Theory; Relational Development

Further Readings

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 737–745.

Koerner, A. F. (2007). Social cognition and family communication: Family communication patterns theory. In D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. Monahan (Eds.) Communication and social cognition: Theory and methods (pp. 197–216). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70–91.

Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 391–445). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

381Family Communication Theories

Van Lear, A., Koerner, A. F., & Allen, D. (2006). Relationship typologies. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 91–111). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

FAMILY COMMUNICATION THEORIES

Family communication theories are coherent accounts of family communication processes and family relationships that provide explanations for phenomena of interests, which frequently are the relationships or communication behaviors them- selves or their outcomes for family members. As such, family communication theories are central to any investigation of family communication pro- cesses and of outcomes that might be affected by them. Family communication theories stem from a number of different academic disciplines and are based on a wide range of methodologies, ranging from critical to scientific. As a result, there is sub- stantial disagreement about the very nature of theory, the role theory plays in research, and the appropriate methods for studying family commu- nication. This entry provides an overview of the theoretical approaches that are most frequently found in family communication research and introduces a few of the more influential theories in some detail.

Divergent Origins

Research on family communication is not an exclusive domain of communication scholars. Rather, academic interest in families and their communication exists in a number of academic disciplines, including child development, family social sciences psychology, and sociology. As a result, there exist many very different theories related to family communication that create very divergent accounts of family communication. Contributing to this diversity is the fact that as a discipline, communication is a relative newcomer compared to other disciplines, which have much longer histories of interest in family communica- tion processes, their antecedents, and outcomes.

Thus, most theories of family communication originated outside the communication discipline and often share the particular assumptions and biases of the disciplines from which they origi- nated. Even among those theories used in family communication research that originated from within the communication discipline, a majority was not developed explicitly with family commu- nication in mind, but rather in regard to interper- sonal communication more generally or in regard to specific communication processes that happen to also take place in the family context, such as self-disclosure or uncertainty reduction. As a con- sequence, family communication theories vary widely in the basic assumptions they make about what is important for family communication, what explains communication behaviors, and what effects communication has on other variables.

Divergent Epistemologies and Methods

The lack of coherence among family communica- tion theories is amplified because family communi- cation scholars employ a wide range of methods that are based on often conflicting epistemologies, from critical theory to quantitative social science. Consequently, there is significant disagreement among family communication scholars not only as to what exactly constitutes a theory of family com- munication, but also about the purposes and func- tions of theory in general and about the appropriate methods for studying family communication.

Critical Family Theory

The purpose of critical theory in general is to delineate the social processes and institutions by which individuals are oppressed and to suggest ways by which individuals can become emanci- pated. As such, applications of critical theory are contextually and historically specific, which neces- sarily limits their generalizability beyond the spe- cific cases or time periods they address. A consequence of this lack of generalizability is that it is difficult to quantify the impact of any one appli- cation of critical theory on the field of family com- munication. Two recent reviews of scholarly articles in family communication, however, suggest that critical theory as an approach plays only a relatively minor role in published family communication

382 Family Communication Theories

research. Nonetheless, its impact on practical appli- cation, such as counseling or public policy, and to a lesser extent teaching, is significant.

Because of its focus on oppression and emanci- pation and its roots in sociology, critical family theory focuses on social practices and institutions that negatively affect families or family members, such as gender roles or how power relationships are enacted to the detriment of women, children, and minorities in social institutions such as mar- riage and family. When explaining family commu- nication, critical theories usually draw parallels between family relationships and other social rela- tionships that define societal power structures, such as the relationships between employers and laborers, how knowledge is managed in society, and ways by which governments restrict individual freedom and choice. By delineating how these larger social relationships and power structures affect family relationships, they suggest ways they can be overcome.

Social Scientific Family Theory

In contrast to critical theory, which has as its goal emancipation, the goal of social scientific approaches to the study of family communication is to discover what is important about human rela- tionships by observing associations between vari- ables and outcomes. Although social scientific theories are also often context specific (e.g., close relationships, marriages, or families), they assume that behavior and the underlying processes deter- mining behavior are universal and therefore that theoretical models are generalizable, at least in principle. Because of their generalizability, social scientific studies dominate published research and textbooks in family communication.

Even among family communication scholars using social scientific approaches, however, there is substantial disagreement about the nature of the phenomena under investigation and consequently, the appropriateness of qualitative and quantitative methods, respectively. The disagreement funda- mentally concerns the significance of meaning for human behavior and researchers’ ability to assess meaning. For qualitative researchers, meaning is central to human behavior, is created in the inter- action, and ultimately is dependent on processes specific to the participants or the interaction.

Consequently, meaning cannot be objectively assessed, and researchers must rely on some form of interpretation that is informed by the partici- pants and/or the researchers’ thorough knowledge of the participants or interaction. Furthermore, participants as well as observers of social processes can assign divergent meaning to the same pro- cesses, thus creating divergent social realities. Qualitative theories, then, function mainly as heu- ristic devices that enable understanding of how social processes might be understood, with no claim being made that this understanding reflects an objective reality.

Quantitative researchers, by contrast, either do not assume that meaning is as central to human behavior or they assume that the processes by which individuals assign meaning are universal (or at least sufficiently shared in a culture, for exam- ple). For them, therefore, objective observation is possible, and research should rely heavily on infer- ential statistics to interpret findings. The purpose of theory in quantitative social science is to model relationships between key variables to explain and predict psychological or behavioral outcomes. Theories are developed and tested by comparing their predictions to observed outcomes, which allows for falsification of a theory.

Shared Assumptions

Despite the numerous disagreements among family communication researchers about crucial aspects of human communication and relation- ships, there seems to be general agreement that families constitute social systems. With this view come a number of basic assumptions, most impor- tantly that of nonsummativity and interdepen- dence. Nonsummativity means that families are more than the sum of their parts—that is, they can- not be understood by even a complete understand- ing of individual family members in isolation. Rather, crucial processes and outcomes are the result of the interaction between family members, and these interactions add to the family. Similarly, interdependence in the family context means that family members influence one another and that their behavior cannot be understood without tak- ing account of their families. It also suggests that a change in the behavior of any one family member affects all other family members as well.

383Family Communication Theories

Another important shared assumption among family communication scholars is that families are best defined using transactional-functional rather than structural definitions. Transactional-functional definitions use criteria based on how families inter- act and what they do to determine which groups of persons constitute families. Examples are defini- tions that include criteria such as shared household responsibilities, problem solving, and children rear- ing, for example. Structural definitions, in contrast, define families based on the presence of certain members, such as the definition of family as consist- ing of parent(s) and their biological and/or adopted child(ren). Because structural definitions exclude a large number of what obviously are families, they have fallen out of favor with most researchers. The ostensible exceptions are theories that explicitly address structural characteristics of families, such as theories of stepfamilies or of adopted families. But even here the structural characteristics are of interest because they are assumed to impact how families interact or function. Thus, the structural criterion is really a proxy for what essentially are transactional-functional characteristics.

Representative Family Communication Theories

As the preceding discussion has shown, there is significant disagreement among family communi- cation scholars about even the most fundamental assumptions of theory and research. Consequently, it is impossible to present any one family commu- nication theory as typical for, or representative of, the field. Nonetheless, this entry concludes with some examples of family communication theories that have reached a fair degree of sophistication and elaboration and also have had significant impact on the field. They are presented here to give the reader an idea about the range of family com- munication theories and not to suggest that these are necessarily the best or most important theories of family communication.

Circumplex Model of Family Functioning

One interesting theory of family communica- tion originating from another discipline is the cir- cumplex model of family functioning, attributable to David Olson and his colleagues. It is unique

among outside theories because communication is a central concept in the theory and is defined in sophisticated terms. It is also among the broadest theories of family communication because it links family communication to family functioning in general, which it associates with a large array of child and family outcomes. The model assesses family functioning based on cohesion and adapt- ability of families, which exist along continua from disengaged to enmeshed and from rigid to chaotic, respectively. Moderate levels on both dimensions are associated with optimal functioning, whereas extremes on either dimension are associated with less than optimal functioning. Thus, families that are separated or engaged function better than families that are either disengaged or enmeshed, and families that are flexible or structured function better than families that are rigid or chaotic. Considering both dimensions simultaneously, fam- ilies that are medium on both dimensions function best, followed by families that are medium on one dimension but extreme on the other dimension, and families that are extreme on both dimensions are the least functional.

Family communication in the circumplex model is a third, facilitating dimension. This means that family communication determines families’ loca- tion along the two dimensions of cohesion and adaptability. Communication also enables families to change their cohesion and adaptability, which is particularly important for the application of the circumplex model to family therapy. Specific com- munication skills identified in the model that facilitate such movements include speaking skills, such as speaking for self and avoiding speaking for others; listening skills, such as active listening and empathy; and general communication skills, such as self-disclosure, clarity, continuity, tracking, and showing respect and regard for one another.

Family Communication Patterns Theory

One theory emerging from within the communi- cation discipline that links communication behav- iors in families to a similarly wide range of family and child outcomes is family communication pat- terns theory (FCPT) developed by Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and her colleagues. FCPT is based on the assumption that creating shared social reality is a basic function of family communication. Families

384 Family Communication Theories

create shared reality through two communication behaviors: conversation orientation and confor- mity orientation, which in turn affect family rela- tionships and outcomes. Conversation orientation refers to frequent and unrestrained communication between parents and children with the purpose of codiscovering the meaning of symbols and objects that constitute the social environment. It is associ- ated with warm and supportive relationships char- acterized by mutual respect and concern for one another. Conformity orientation, in contrast, refers to more restricted communication between parents and children in which the parents define social reality for the family. It is associated with more authoritarian parenting and less concern for the children’s thoughts and feelings.

Theoretically orthogonal or independent, these two orientations define four family types. Con- sensual families are high on both conversation and conformity orientation. Their communication is characterized by a tension between open explora- tion, on the one hand, and pressure to agree and to preserve the existing hierarchy within the family, on the other hand. Families resolve this tension by parents listening to their children while simultane- ously persuading them to adopt the parents’ belief system. These families are well functioning and have superior outcomes for all family members.

Pluralistic families emphasize conversation orientation over conformity orientation. Their communication is characterized by open and unconstrained interactions involving all family members. Although parents are open about their values and beliefs in these families, they do not aim to control their children and accept their children’s different opinions. Children of these families learn to be independent and autonomous and to com- municate persuasively, and they are generally satis- fied with their family relationships.

Protective families emphasize conformity over conversation orientation. Their communication is characterized by parental authority and child obe- dience and by little concern for conceptual mat- ters. Parents in these families decide for their children and see little value in explaining their reasoning to them, although they clearly state rules and expect their children to follow them. Children in protective families learn to rely on rules for behaving; there is little value accorded to family discussions to figure things out, and

children tend not to trust their own decision- making abilities.

Laissez-faire families are low on both confor- mity and conversation orientation. Their commu- nication is characterized by infrequent and typically uninvolving interactions. Members of laissez-faire families are emotionally divorced from one another and have little interest in the thoughts and feelings of others. Children of these families learn that there is little value in family conversations and that they have to make their own decisions. Because they do receive little behavioral guidance from their parents, they question their decision-making ability and are more susceptible to external influ- ences from peers and media.

Family communication patterns have been asso- ciated with a number of family processes, such as conflict, confirmation and affection, family rituals, and understanding. They also have been associated with child outcomes, such as communication appre- hension, conflict with romantic partners, resiliency, and children’s mental and physical health.

Dialectical Theory of Family Communication

An example of an important interpersonal com- munication theory that has been particularly popular with family communication scholars is dia- lectical theory. Based on the dialectical thinking of Leslie Baxter and others, dialectical theory proposes that family communication is the result of dialecti- cal, or opposing and inherently incompatible, goals pursued by families and family members. Unlike Hegel’s dialectics, which are resolved through a synthesis of the opposing forces, relational dialec- tics are not permanently resolved, but the back and forth between forces permeates family communica- tion and gives meaning to it. Although dialectical tensions can be experienced in a number of rela- tionship domains, the most relevant ones to families are those of affiliation, predictability, and closeness; these can be experienced in intrafamilial relation- ships, as well as in the relationships of families with their social environment. Although dialectics are irresolvable, they are often experienced as threaten- ing to family relationships, and families employ various strategies to manage them. Not all of these strategies are equally effective and equally func- tional, however. Some strategies, such as attempts to integrate opposing desires into the family and to

385Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies

reaffirm the centrality and interdependence of the relationship, usually lead to more positive out- comes, whereas others, such as denial or disorienta- tion, usually lead to more negative outcomes.

Although dialectical tensions are assumed to affect all family communication, the specific dia- lectics experienced by each family are unique, and their effects depend to a large extent on the mean- ing given to them by family members. As a result, research employing dialectical theory most fre- quently relies on qualitative research methods.

Affective Exchange Theory

One example of a family communication theory addressing a relatively narrow phenomenon in fam- ily communication while simultaneously being grounded in and testing a metatheoretical frame- work is affective exchange theory (AET). AET is different from most other theories of family com- munication, which typically investigate how humans communicate without explicitly considering the roots of human communication, because it explic- itly makes and tests the assumption that human communication is shaped by evolutionary pro- cesses. By arguing that humans’ ability to experi- ence and express affection was selected for because it created significant benefits in terms of survival and reproduction, AET connects to the large and powerful explanatory framework of human behav- ior that evolutionary theory provides.

Tying AET to the theory of evolution also led to very specific and unique hypotheses about family communication. For example, evolutionary theory would suggest that parental affection functions to enable one’s offspring to survive and propagate. Consequently, fathers should be more affectionate with children that do propagate the father’s genes— biological as opposed to stepchildren and hetero- sexual as opposed to bisexual or homosexual sons, for example. Both predictions were supported.

In addition, AET has been investigated mainly in the context of father–son relationships. Not only did this provide important information on an underresearched family relationship, but also dem- onstrated the importance of affection in nonro- mantic interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, by looking at how father–son communication changes in subsequent generations, research using the AET framework was also able to demonstrate

the concurrent influence of evolutionary forces and cultural forces, thereby further demonstrating that genes and culture both play important roles in the behavior of families.

Ascan F. Koerner

See also Communibiology; Critical Theory; Epistemology; Family and Marital Schemas and Types; Relational Communication Theory; Relational Dialectics; Scientific Approach; Social Construction of Reality; System Theory

Further Readings

Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relational dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 130–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L.A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Introduction: Metatheroy and theory in family communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Floyd, K. (2001). Human affection exchange I: Reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their sons. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 39–50.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Communication in intact families. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 177–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3–28.

FANS, FANDOM, AND FAN STUDIES

The word fan has been in constant use since the 19th century, and the term fandom dates from the turn of the 20th century. Fan and fandom initially denoted sports-club fans and soon after, the quickly growing fanbase of science fiction. Organized fan communities existed before these groups, however; readers of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, for example, corresponded with his fictional creation and mourned Sherlock

386 Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies

Holmes’s death. In all cases, fan implies some or all the following: a fascination, interest, and emo- tional investment in a particular subject; (often communal) engagement with a particular leisure activity; and an emphasis on amateur endeavors.

Fan studies is situated mainly in two areas: the social sciences and film and media studies. Psychology and sociology study the group behav- ior of fans as well as the passionate engagement with and possession of objects that appear uninter- esting or ridiculous to others. Sports, music, and film fans are likely subjects, and the culture at large tends to accept them more readily—sports fandom, possibly because of its masculine conno- tations of physical exertion and competition; music and film fandom, mostly as passing teenage behavior. In fact, the more extreme edges of fan- dom such as football hooligans or punks tend to be seen as exceptions rather than fannish represen- tatives. Film and media studies focuses mostly on the relation between media texts and their audi- ences, looking toward fans as often exemplary readers-viewers. The following will restrict itself to research and debates within fan studies that focus on television, film, and new media, with its adja- cent focus on science fiction, comics, gaming, and related fields.

In media fandom, adult fans—especially of less respected and marginal cultural objects such as sci- ence fiction or television shows—often are regarded with suspicion and reproached for wasting their energies. Whereas dressing up may be acceptable for children, cosplay (i.e., costuming in media characters) is not; whereas playacting is fine on the playground and theatre stage, larping (i.e., live action role-playing games) is pathologized; whereas making up stories about one’s favorite characters is a beloved tradition shared in many bedtime ritu- als, fan fiction is regarded less positively. Yet these examples suggest that fan behavior is an extension of behavior considered acceptable in general cul- ture. In fact, much recent fan-studies discourse has begun to look at fannish behavior rather than fan- nish identity, thus suggesting that everyone may be a fan of sorts.

Especially in media studies, where the media convergence of industry and audiences encourages fannish modes of engagement, the gap is narrow- ing between fully immersed fans exchanging stories, analyses, and interpretations among them selves

and casual viewers hitting up the bulletin board of a favorite show to discuss it after an episode airs. Media fans thus are at the center of a media con- vergence of text and context, producer and con- sumer, appropriation and ownership; they showcase ideal investment in a media product and its trans- media branding and the marketing strategies of their communities.

Media convergence also affects industry dis- courses around viewers and fans. Although the borders between professionals and fans always have been permeable, the past decade has cele- brated the rise of the auteur fan boy in such show runners as Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel: The Series), Russell T. Davies (Dr. Who), and Ron Moore (Battlestar Galactica) as well as an increasing interest in fan-generated and fan- created content, such as fan-created advertisements or even episode writing contests. Fans are ever present in the contemporary media landscape, and fandom is growing both more mainstream and more difficult to define as a result. In a climate in which fannish behavior is becoming more normal- ized and more marketable, fan research has become a subdiscipline that interrogates the very defini- tions of fan, fandom, and fan studies.

History

U.S. science fiction fandom initially organized in the 1920s around Hugo Gernsback’s “pulp” mag- azines, which published science fiction stories on cheap paper. These publications actively invited commentary from readers, which they then printed in dedicated letters sections. This focus from the text to commentary and readers and the inclusion of mailing addresses allowed fans to communicate with one another unmediated. As fans communi- cated with one another, they began to form clubs and organize conventions that offered ways not only to meet with one another, but also to connect with professionals. Many famous science fiction editors and writers, such as Isaac Asimov, James Blish, and Frederik Pohl, started out as members of fandom. Demographics were overwhelmingly White and male, both among professional science fiction writers and their fans.

The late 1960s saw a substantial split that would become important for fan studies, media studies, and audience research. With the rise of Star Trek

387Fans, Fandom, and Fan Studies