Theories of Communication
[The name of the author appears here]
[The name of the institute appears here]

Theories of Communication
Attribution Theory
1. Attribution Theory believes that people try to determine why people do what they do. This search for a reason behind behavior allows people to attribute causes to behavior. A behavioral cause could be situational; where a person had to do something because of the situation they were in. A behavioral cause could also result from something unique to person.
A person seeking to understand why another person did something may attribute one or more causes to that behavior. However, a three-stage process leads up to the final attribution:
1. The person must perceive or observe the behavior,
2. Then the person must believe that the behavior was intentionally performed, and
3. Then the person must determine if they believe the other person was forced to perform the behavior (in which case the cause is attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the cause is attributed to the other person).(Heider, F. p 358-374)
Constructivism
Constructivism makes three assumptions regarding communication:
1. All communication is intentional
2. Communication is goal-driven
3. Negotiation comes into play with shared interpretation (meaning)
Constructivism focuses on individuals rather than interactions. It tries to account for why people make the certain communicative choices. Constructs are the basis of constructivism. They are dimensions of judgment and can be thought of as filters, files, templates, or interpretive schemas. They are domain specific, almost exclusively focusing on interpersonal message variations. Constructs are assumed to change over time, following Werner's Orthogenetic Principle (impressions start globally, undifferentiated, and unorganized then get more complex, abstract, differentiated, and organized as people develop).
Constructivist research uses the Role Category Question to find constructs embedded in free response writing, often about a person the writer likes and a person the writer dislikes. The more constructs a person uses the more cognitively differentiated they are. Cognitive differentiation is a subset of cognitive complexity, which measures the organization, quantity, and level of abstractness of the constructs a person holds about another person. Cognitive differentiation measures only the quantity of constructs but still predicts the degree to which a communicator is person centered and other oriented. Constructivism claims that the more cognitively differentiated a person is the more likely they are to be a competent communicator (one who intentionally uses knowledge of shared interpretations to express meaning is such a way as to control another person's interpretations of some event, object, person, etc.); (Delia, J, O’Keefe. 147-191).
Constructivist research shows moderately strong correlations between the organizational level of a person and cognitive differentiation, persuasive ability, and perspective taking. Smaller correlations have been found between organizational levels and self-monitoring. (Burleson, B. R, 1989)
The Elaboration Likelihood Model
The Elaboration Likelihood Model claims that there are two paths to persuasion: the central path and the peripheral path. The central path is most appropriately used when the receiver is motivated to think about the message and has the ability to think about the message. If the person cares about the issue and has access to the message with a minimum of distraction, then that person will elaborate on the message. Lasting persuasion is likely if the receiver thinks, or rehearses, favorable thoughts about the message.
A boomerang effect (moving away from the advocated position) is likely to occur if the subject rehearses unfavorable thoughts about the message. If the message is ambiguous but pro-attitudinal (in line with the receiver's attitudes) then persuasion is likely. If the message is ambiguous but counter-attitudinal then a boomerang effect is likely. (Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, 1987)
If the message is ambiguous but attitudinally neutral (with respect to the receiver) or if the receiver is unable or not motivated to listen to the message then the receiver will look for a peripheral cue. Peripheral cues include such communication strategies as trying to associate the advocated position with things the receiver already thinks positively towards (e.g., food, money, sex), using an expert appeal, and attempting a contrast effect where the advocated position is presented after several other positions, which the receiver despises, have been presented. If the peripheral cue association is accepted then there may be a temporary attitude change and possibly future elaboration. If the peripheral cue association is not accepted, or if it is not present, then the person retains the attitude initially held (O’Keefe, 1990).
Social Judgment Theory
The key point of the Social Judgment Theory is that attitude change (persuasion) is mediated by judgmental processes and effects. Put differently, persuasion occurs at the end of the process where a person understands a message then compares the position it advocates to the person's position on that issue. A person's position on an issue is dependent on:
1. The person's most preferred position (their anchor point),
2. The person's judgment of the various alternatives (spread across their latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and non commitment), and
3. The person's level of ego-involvement with the issue. (Sherif, M., Sherif, C., & Nebergall, R., 1965)
At times the relationship is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship. (Altman, I., & Taylor, D. 1973)
The larger the reward - cost ratio the more disclosure takes place. If you think to the relationships you have been in you will probably find that in almost all of them more disclosure took place at the outset of the relationship than at any other place. That happens because people initially disclose superficial information that costs very little if another person finds it out. (Altman, I., & Taylor, D, 1987)


References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social Penetration Theory. In M. E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research, 257-277. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burleson, B. R. (1989). The Constructivist Approach to person-centerer communication: Analysis of a research exemplar. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.
Delia, J., O'Keefe, B. J., & O'Keefe, D. J. (1982). The Constructivist Approach to communication. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human Communication Theory: Comparative Essays, 147-191. New York: Harper and Row.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality, Psychological Review, 51, 358-374.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
O'Keefe, and E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication: Paradigm exemplars, 33-72. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Elaboration Likelihood Model. In Persuasion: Theory and research, 95-129. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Social Judgment Theory. In Persuasion: Theory and research, 29-44. 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.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. M. C. Brown.
Sherif, M., Sherif, C., & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

Book Reports.
Essays.
Term Papers.
Book Reviews.