Communication theory

Read chapters 6 & 7 and write four paragraphs based on the question below. Then read chapters 8 & 9 and write another four paragraphs based on the questions below. I will provide you with an example on how it should be written. The chapters are blow.

What is the “thing” the authors are discussing? Why is it important? (Claim)

What are they saying about this “thing?” Use evidence from the reading. (Proof)

How might you use this in your class assignments (discussion boards, drafts, final paper, etc.)?

This page intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank
A FIRST LOOK AT
COMMUNICATION
THEORY
EIGHTH EDITION
EM GRIFFIN
This page intentionally left blank
A FIRST LOOK AT
COMMUNICATION
THEORY
EIGHTH EDITION
EM GRIFFIN
Wheaton College
Special Consultants:
Glenn G. Sparks
Purdue University
Andrew M. Ledbetter
Texas Christian University
TM
TM
Published by McGraw-Hill, an imprint of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020.
Copyright © 2012, 2009, 2006, 2003, 2000, 1997, 1994, 1991. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission,
or broadcast for distance learning.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 QDB/QDB 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN: 978-0-07-353430-5
MHID: 0-07-353430-7
Executive Vice President, Editorial: Michael Ryan
Publisher: David Patterson
Executive Editor: Susan Gouijnstook
Executive Marketing Manager: Leslie Oberhuber
Director of Development: Rhona Robbin
Senior Developmental Editor: Jennie Katsaros
Senior Project Manager: Holly Irish
Production Service: Merrill Peterson, Matrix Productions, Inc.
Media Project Manager: Jabez Bethuel
Manuscript Editor: Toni Zuccarini Ackley
Cover Designer: Preston Thomas
Buyer II: Tandra Jorgensen
Composition: 10/12 Palatino by Aptara,® Inc.
Printing: 45# New Era Matte Plus, Quad/Graphics
Credits: The credits section for this book begins on page C-1 and is considered an extension of the copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Grifin, Emory A.
A irst look at communication theory / Em Grifin.—8th ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-07-353430-5
1. Communication—Philosophy. I. Title.
P90.G725 2011
302.201—dc22
2011001159
The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an
endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill, and McGraw-Hill does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at
these sites.
www.mhhe.com
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Em Griffin is Professor Emeritus of Communication at Wheaton College in
Illinois, where he has taught for more than 35 years and has been chosen Teacher
of the Year. He received his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Michigan, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in communication from Northwestern
University. His research interest centers on the development of close friendships.
Em is the author of three applied communication books: The Mind Changers
analyzes practical techniques of persuasion; Getting Together offers research-based
suggestions for effective group leadership; and Making Friends describes the way
quality interpersonal communication can create and sustain close relationships.
In addition to teaching and writing, Em serves with Opportunity International, a microinance development organization that provides opportunities for
people in chronic poverty around the world to transform their lives. He is also an
active mediator at the Center for Conlict Resolution in Chicago and runs his own
mediation service, Communication First.
Em’s wife, Jeanie, is an artist; they recently celebrated 50 years of marriage.
They have two married, adult children, Jim and Sharon, and six grandchildren,
Joshua, Amy, Sam, Kyle, Alison, and Dan.
v
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
Preface for Instructors
x
DIVISION ONE
OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 1
Launching Your Study
of Communication Theory
CHAPTER 2
Talk About Theory
CHAPTER 3
Weighing the Words
CHAPTER 4
Mapping the Territory (Seven Traditions in
the Field of Communication Theory)
2
CHAPTER 5
Symbolic Interactionism
of George Herbert Mead
CHAPTER 6
Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)
of W. Barnett Pearce & Vernon Cronen
CHAPTER 7
Expectancy Violations Theory
of Judee Burgoon
98
Relationship Development
111
CHAPTER 9
Social Penetration Theory
of Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor
113
CHAPTER 10
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
of Charles Berger
125
CHAPTER 11
Social Information Processing Theory
of Joseph Walther
138
Relationship Maintenance
151
CHAPTER 12
Relational Dialectics
of Leslie Baxter & Barbara Montgomery
153
CHAPTER 13
Communication Privacy Management Theory
of Sandra Petronio
168
CHAPTER 14
The Interactional View
of Paul Watzlawick
181
13
25
37
DIVISION TWO
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Interpersonal Messages
CHAPTER 8
Constructivism
of Jesse Delia
52
54
67
84
vii
viii
CONTENTS
Inluence
CHAPTER 15
Social Judgment Theory
of Muzafer Sherif
CHAPTER 16
Elaboration Likelihood Model
of Richard Petty & John Cacioppo
CHAPTER 17
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
of Leon Festinger
192
194
205
217
DIVISION THREE
GROUP AND PUBLIC
COMMUNICATION
Group Communication
CHAPTER 18
Functional Perspective
on Group Decision Making
of Randy Hirokawa & Dennis Gouran
231
299
CHAPTER 24
Narrative Paradigm
of Walter Fisher
308
DIVISION FOUR
MASS COMMUNICATION
Media and Culture
319
CHAPTER 25
Media Ecology
of Marshall McLuhan
321
CHAPTER 26
Semiotics
of Roland Barthes
332
CHAPTER 27
Cultural Studies
of Stuart Hall
344
Media Effects
355
CHAPTER 28
Uses and Gratiications
of Elihu Katz
357
CHAPTER 29
Cultivation Theory
of George Gerbner
366
CHAPTER 30
Agenda-Setting Theory
of Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw
378
233
CHAPTER 19
Symbolic Convergence Theory
of Ernest Bormann
247
Organizational Communication
259
CHAPTER 20
Cultural Approach to Organizations
of Clifford Geertz & Michael Pacanowsky
CHAPTER 23
Dramatism
of Kenneth Burke
261
CHAPTER 21
Critical Theory of Communication
in Organizations
of Stanley Deetz
272
DIVISION FIVE
CULTURAL CONTEXT
Public Rhetoric
287
Intercultural Communication
392
289
CHAPTER 31
Communication Accommodation Theory
of Howard Giles
394
CHAPTER 22
The Rhetoric
of Aristotle
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 32
Face-Negotiation Theory
of Stella Ting-Toomey
DIVISION SIX
INTEGRATION
407
CHAPTER 33
Speech Codes Theory
of Gerry Philipsen
421
Gender and Communication
433
CHAPTER 34
Genderlect Styles
of Deborah Tannen
ix
435
CHAPTER 35
Standpoint Theory
of Sandra Harding & Julia Wood
447
CHAPTER 36
Muted Group Theory
of Cheris Kramarae
460
CHAPTER 37
Common Threads in Comm Theories
473
Appendix A: Abstracts of Theories
A-1
Appendix B: Feature Films that Illustrate
Communication Theories
A-6
Appendix C: NCA Credo for
Ethical Communication
A-8
Endnotes
E-1
Credits and Acknowledgments
C-1
Index
I-1
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
If you’re already familiar with A First Look at Communication Theory and understand the approach, organization, and main features of the book, you may want to
jump ahead to the “Major Changes in the Eighth Edition” section. For those who
are new to the text, reading the entire preface will give you a good grasp of what
you and your students can expect.
A Balanced Approach to Theory Selection. I’ve written A First Look for
students who have no background in communication theory. It’s designed for
undergraduates enrolled in an entry-level course, regardless of the students’ classiication. The trend in the ield is to offer students a broad introduction to theory
relatively early in their program. But if a department chooses to offer its irst
theory course on the junior or senior level, the course will still be the students’ irst
comprehensive look at theory, so the book will meet them where they are.
The aim of the text is to present 32 speciic theories in a way that makes them
interesting and understandable. By the time readers complete the book, they
should have a working knowledge of theories that explain a broad range of communication phenomena. Of course, my ultimate goal is for students to understand
the relationships among the leading ideas in our ield, but before they can make
those connections, they need to have a good grasp of what the theorists are saying.
The bulk of the book provides that raw material.
With the help of journal and yearbook editors, and the feedback of 200
instructors, I’ve selected a range of theories that relect the diversity within the
discipline. Some theories are proven candidates for a Communication Theory
Hall of Fame. For example, Aristotle’s analysis of logical, emotional, and ethical
appeals continues to set the agenda for many public-speaking courses. Mead’s
symbolic interactionism is formative for interpretive theorists who are dealing
with language, thought, self-concept, or the effect of society upon the individual.
Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory was the irst objective theory to be crafted
by a social scientist trained in the ield. The axioms of Watzlawick’s interactional
view continue to be debated by interpersonal scholars. And no student of mediated communication should be ignorant of Gerbner’s cultivation theory, which
explains why heavy television viewing cultivates fear of a mean and scary world.
It would be shortsighted, however, to limit the selection to the classics of
communication. Some of the discipline’s most creative approaches are its newest.
For example, Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery’s theory of relational dialectics offers insight into the ongoing tensions inherent in personal relationships.
x
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
xi
Joe Walther’s social information processing is one of the few fully developed
and well-researched theories of computer-mediated communication. And Gerry
Philipsen’s speech codes theory upgrades the ethnography of communication
from a methodology to a theory that can be used to explain, predict, and control
discourse about discourse.
Organizational Plan of the Book. Each chapter introduces a single theory
in 10–15 pages. I’ve found that most undergraduates think in terms of discrete
packets of information, so the concentrated coverage gives them a chance to focus
their thoughts while reading a single chapter. In this way, students can gain an
in-depth understanding of important theories rather than acquire only a vague
familiarity with a jumble of related ideas. The one-chapter–one-theory arrangement also gives teachers the opportunity to drop theories or rearrange the order
of presentation without tearing apart the fabric of the text.
The irst four chapters provide a framework for understanding the theories to come. The opening chapter, “Launching Your Study of Communication
Theory,” presents working deinitions of both theory and communication, and also
prepares students for the arrangement of the chapters and the features within
them. Chapter 2, “Talk About Theory,” lays the groundwork for understanding
the differences between objective and interpretive theories. Chapter 3, “Weighing the Words,” presents two sets of criteria for determining a good objective or
interpretive theory. Based on Robert Craig’s (University of Colorado) conception,
Chapter 4, “Mapping the Territory,” introduces seven traditions within the ield
of communication theory.
Following this integrative framework, I present the 32 theories in 32 selfcontained chapters. Each theory is discussed within the context of a communication topic: interpersonal messages, relationship development, relationship
maintenance, inluence, group communication, organizational communication,
public rhetoric, media and culture, media effects, intercultural communication,
and gender and communication. These communication context sections usually
contain two or three theories. Each section’s two-page introduction outlines a crucial issue that theorists working in this area address. The placement of theories in
familiar contexts helps students recognize that theories are answers to questions
they’ve been asking all along. The inal chapter, “Common Threads in Comm
Theories,” offers students a novel form of integration that will help them discern
order in the tapestry of communication theory that might otherwise seem chaotic.
Because all theory and practice has value implications, I briely explore a
dozen ethical principles throughout the book. Consistent with the focus of this
text, each principle is the central tenet of a speciic ethical theory. Other disciplines
may ignore these thorny issues, but to discuss communication as a process that
is untouched by questions of good and bad, right and wrong, or virtue and vice
would be to disregard an ongoing concern in our ield.
Features of Each Chapter. Most people think in pictures. Students will have a
rough time understanding a theory unless they apply its explanations and interpretations to concrete situations. The typical chapter uses an extended example
to illustrate the “truth” a theory proposes. I encourage readers to try out ideas
by visualizing a irst meeting of freshman roommates, responding to conlict in a
dysfunctional family, trying to persuade other students to support a zero-tolerance
policy on driving after drinking, and many others. I also use Toni Morrison’s
book Beloved, speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, and the ilms
Bend It Like Beckham, Thank You for Smoking, Erin Brockovich, and When Harry Met
xii
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
Sally to illustrate principles of the theories. The case study in each chapter follows
the pedagogical principle of explaining what students don’t yet know in terms of
ideas and images already within their experience.
Some theories are tightly linked with an extensive research project. For example, the impact of cognitive dissonance theory was greatly spurred by Festinger’s
surprising inding in his now classic $1/$20 experiment. Philipsen’s speech codes
theory began with a three-year ethnographic study of what it means to speak like
a man in “Teamsterville.” And Delia’s constructivist research continues to be dependent on Crockett’s Role Category Questionnaire. When such exemplars exist,
I describe the research in detail so that students can learn from and appreciate the
beneits of grounding theory in systematic observation. Thus, readers of A First
Look are led through a variety of research designs and data analyses.
Students will encounter the names of Baxter, Berger, Bormann, Burgoon,
Burke, Deetz, Fisher, Giles, Kramarae, Pacanowsky, Pearce, Philipsen, TingToomey, Walther, Wood, and many others in later communication courses. I
therefore make a concerted effort to link theory and theorist. By pairing a particular theory with its originator, I try to promote both recall and respect for a given
scholar’s effort.
The text of each chapter concludes with a section that critiques the theory.
This represents a hard look at the ideas presented in light of the criteria for a good
theory outlined in Chapter 3. Some theorists have told me that I am a “friend”
of their theory. I appreciate that. I want to present all of them in a constructive
way, but after I provide a summary of the theory’s strengths, I then discuss the
weaknesses, unanswered questions, and possible errors that remain. I try to stimulate a “That makes sense, and yet I wonder . . .” response among students.
I include a short list of thought questions at the end of each chapter. Labeled
“Questions to Sharpen Your Focus,” these probes encourage students to make
connections among ideas in the chapter and also to apply the theory to their
everyday communication experience. As part of this feature, words printed in
italics remind students of the key terms of a given theory.
Each chapter ends with a short list of annotated readings entitled “A Second
Look.” The heading refers to resources for students who are interested in a theory
and want to go further than a 10- to 15-page introduction allows. The top item is
the resource I recommend as the starting point for further study. The other listings identify places to look for material about each of the major issues raised in
the chapter. The format is designed to offer practical encouragement and guidance
for further study without overwhelming the novice with multiple citations. The
sources of quotations and citations of evidence are listed in an “Endnotes” section
at the end of the book.
I believe professors and students alike will get a good chuckle out of the
cartoons I’ve selected for each chapter and section introduction. The art’s main
function, however, is to illustrate signiicant points in the text. As in other editions,
I’m committed to using quality cartoon art from The New Yorker and Punch magazines, as well as comic strips such as “Calvin and Hobbes,” “Dilbert,” “Cathy,”
and “Zits.” Perceptive cartoonists are modern-day prophets—their humor serves
the education process well when it slips through mental barriers or attitudinal
defenses that didactic prose can’t penetrate.
While no author considers his or her style ponderous or dull, I believe I’ve
presented the theories in a clear and lively fashion. Accuracy alone does not communicate. I’ve tried to remain faithful to the vocabulary each theorist uses so that
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
xiii
the student can consider the theory in the author’s own terms, but I also translate
technical language into more familiar words. Students and reviewers cite readability and interest as particular strengths of the text. I encourage you to sample
a chapter so you can decide for yourself.
In 12 of the chapters, you’ll see photographs of the theorists who appear in
my “Conversations with Communication Theorists,” eight-minute video clips of
our discussions together. The text that accompanies each picture previews a few
intriguing comments the theorists made so students can watch the interview with
a speciic purpose in mind. You can ind these videos on the book’s website, www.
airstlook.com.
I encourage you to check out the website for other features that can equip you
to make theory exciting for your students. Features include information on movie
clips that illustrate speciic theories, student application log entries that show Kurt
Lewin was right when he said that there’s nothing as practical as a good theory,
and a comparison of all major comm theory texts to ind out what theories are covered in each book. Many of you will appreciate the theory archive, which contains
more than 20 complete chapters from previous editions. This way you can assign
one of your favorites if it isn’t in the current edition. The most popular resource on
the site is the world-class instructor’s manual prepared by Emily Langan, which
accounts for the vast majority of the 40,000 log-ins per month. In the passwordprotected, instructors-only section of the site, you’ll ind suggestions for discussions, classroom exercises and activities, and short-answer quizzes for each chapter.
Major Changes in the Eighth Edition. With the strong encouragement of a
focus group and the results of an extensive online survey, I’ve added three new
theories to this edition. Sandra Petronio’s communication privacy management theory
has garnered great interest in the last decade. Though applicable whenever private
information is disclosed, CPM’s relevance in the expanding ield of health communication makes its inclusion in the text particularly appropriate. In previous
editions I’ve used an abbreviated version of Ernest Bormann’s symbolic convergence
theory to illustrate the different criteria for evaluating scientiic and interpretive
theories. I now devote an entire chapter to this important group theory that combines rhetorical criticism with the desire for universal principles. And because the
uses and gratiications approach of Elihu Katz changed the direction of media-effects
theory and research, I’m pleased to introduce his work in this edition. In order to
make room for those last two theories, I’ve moved my coverage of adaptive structuration theory and spiral of silence to the theory archive at www.airstlook.com.
I’ve streamlined all of the integration chapters. I’ve transferred my discussion
of research from Chapter 2, “Talk About Theory” to Chapter 3, “Weighing the
Words,” where quantitative or qualitative research becomes a sixth standard for a
good objective or interpretive theory. Because I’ve moved my description of symbolic convergence theory to a stand-alone chapter, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 are
shorter and more focused. In the previous edition, Chapter 4 illustrated the seven
traditions of communication theory with a potpourri of early theories, research
programs, and quotations that could confuse or overwhelm beginning students.
In this edition, I describe how each tradition studies friendship, a topic near and
dear to most college students. The end result is that these three integrative chapters are clearer and briefer, and do more to demonstrate the relationship between
theory and research.
For the last 15 years in my communication theory course, I’ve given an
“application log” assignment in which students write a paragraph or two applying
xiv
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
each theory to some aspect of their own lives or the world around them. When
I read some exemplars in class, they are fascinated with the way their peers put
theory into practice. I’ve inserted an application log entry into most chapters
where I think it will not only spark interest, but also reinforce the speciic feature
of the theory I’m describing. In each case, the writer has given me explicit permission to do so.
I’ve made at least one signiicant change in two-thirds of the theory chapters.
This may be a research update, a shift in the theorist’s thinking, a new example
that runs throughout the theory, or a complete reorganization of the chapter. Here
are a few examples: In the chapter on social judgment theory, I describe a media
campaign at a Big Ten university that changed students’ perception and behavior
by placing messages on binge drinking within students’ latitude of noncommitment. The treatment of social information processing (SIP) now addresses impression formation on social networking sites like Facebook. Instead of illustrating the
functional perspective on group decision making with an example of a faculty search
committee (most students couldn’t care less), I now describe how two groups of
students in similar off-campus courses made quite different decisions on how
they would live together. And the entire chapter on cultivation theory has been
restructured.
Acknowledgments. Working closely with three former students and friends
has made crafting this edition an exciting and enjoyable project. Emily Langan,
my colleague at Wheaton, has written an instructor’s manual that is recognized
as the gold standard by others in our ield. Instructors tell me they walk into class
with conidence after reading Emily’s insights regarding a theory and her account
of best practices on how to help students grasp and appreciate it.
On the title page of the book, Glenn Sparks (Purdue University) and Andrew
Ledbetter (Texas Christian University) are listed as “Special Consultants.” What
does this ambiguous title mean? For me, it signiies that they’ve been involved
in every major decision I’ve made for this edition. They were partners in creating questions and interpreting the answers for a focus group and online survey
of instructors teaching a communication theory course. They counseled me on
changes that needed to be made and how best to make them. They read and made
detailed comments on my drafts of new material. And they gladly took ownership of a few chapters in the book. Andrew did the rewrites of the chapters on
social penetration, social information processing, and muted group theory. Glenn
authored the new chapter on uses and gratiications and did a major rewrite of
the chapter on cultivation theory. Emily, Andrew, and Glenn have contributed in
ways that are above and beyond what any author has a right to expect. It’s been
a delight working with them.
I gratefully acknowledge the wisdom and counsel of many other generous
scholars whose intellectual capital is embedded in every page you’ll read. Over
the last 24 years, hundreds of communication scholars have gone out of their
way to make the book better. People who have made direct contributions to this
edition include Ron Adler, Santa Barbara City College; Ron Arnett, Duquesne
University; Julie Borkin, Oakland University; Brant Burleson, Purdue University;
Stan Deetz, University of Colorado; Linda Desidero, University of Maryland;
Thomas Discenna, Oakland University; Steve Duck, University of Iowa; Belle
Edson, Arizona State University; Darin Garard, Santa Barbara City College;
Howard Giles, University of California, Santa Barbara; Donna Gotch, California
State University, San Bernardino; John Harrigan, Erie Community College; Cheris
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
xv
Kramarae, University of Oregon; Erina MacGeorge, Purdue University; Glen
McClish, San Diego State University; Max McCombs, University of Texas; Marty
Medhurst, Baylor University; Melanie Mills, Eastern Illinois University; Barnett
Pearce, Fielding Graduate Institute; Russ Proctor, Northern Kentucky University;
Read Schuchardt, Wheaton College; Paul Stob, Vanderbilt University; Stella TingToomey, California State University, Fullerton; Scott Turcott, Indiana Wesleyan
University; Robert Woods Jr., Spring Arbor University. Without their help, this
edition would be less accurate and certainly less interesting.
My relationships with the professionals at McGraw-Hill have been highly
satisfactory. I am grateful for Susan Gouijnstook, Executive Editor; Erika Lake,
Editorial Coordinator; Leslie Oberhuber, Executive Marketing Manager; and
Holly Irish, one of two Production Editors on the project. Jennie Katsaros, Senior
Development Editor, Merrill Peterson, Production Editor from Matrix Productions, and Penny Smith, Assistant Production Editor at Matrix are the three people
with whom I’ve gladly worked most closely. Jennie has been my go-to person
at McGraw-Hill for the last ive editions of the text—we’ve seen it all together.
Merrill’s and Penny’s competence instills conidence that the job will be done
right; in a crisis they are unlappable. When McGraw-Hill conirmed that Merrill
and Penny would shepherd the production process, I knew I could relax.
I’ve also been well-served by three outside contractors: Jenn Meyer, a commercial computer artist, created and revised igures on 24-hours notice; Judy
Brody achieved the impossible by making the extensive permissions process enjoyable; Robyn Tellefsen was my student research assistant for the fourth edition
of the book and is now a freelance writer and editor. When I wanted to work with
someone who was familiar with the content and who I trusted implicitly, Robyn
enthusiastically agreed to edit new material before I submitted it and proofread
the entire text before it went to the printer. Other authors are envious when they
hear of my good fortune to work with these nine people.
My research assistants for this edition have been Elizabeth Wilhoit and Ben
Robertson. Elizabeth saw me through the irst half of the project before she entered a graduate program in rhetoric at Purdue. Ben, a media-studies honor student at Wheaton, picked up where Elizabeth left off. His work included the daunting task of constructing the book’s extensive index while the publishing deadline
loomed. I’m grateful for Elizabeth’s and Ben’s cheerful and helpful can-do attitude
throughout the process. Colleagues at other schools are amazed when they hear
of the dedicated and sophisticated help I receive from Wheaton undergraduates.
Finally, I gratefully recognize the continued encouragement, understanding,
and loving support of my wife, Jean—not just on this project, but throughout 50
years of marriage. Her love, sense of humor, and parallel passion to create art and
glorious music for others has made it possible for me to throw myself into this
project.
Em Grifin
This page intentionally left blank
A FIRST LOOK AT
COMMUNICATION
THEORY
EIGHTH EDITION
EM GRIFFIN
This page intentionally left blank
DIVISION ONE
Overview
CHAPTER 1.
CHAPTER 2.
CHAPTER 3.
CHAPTER 4.
Launching Your Study of Communication Theory
Talk About Theory
Weighing the Words
Mapping the Territory (Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory)
CHAPTER
1
Launching Your Study
of Communication Theory
This is a book about theories—communication theories. After that statement you
may already be stiling a yawn. Many college students, after all, regard theory
as obscure, dull, and irrelevant. People outside the classroom are even less charitable. An aircraft mechanic once chided a professor: “You academic types are
all alike. Your heads are crammed so full of theory, you wouldn’t know which
end of a socket wrench to grab. Any plane you touched would crash and burn.
All Ph.D. stands for is ‘piled higher and deeper.’”
The mechanic could be right. Yet it’s ironic that even in the process of knocking theory, he resorts to his own theory of cognitive overload to explain what
he sees as the mechanical stupidity of scholars. I appreciate his desire to make
sense of his world. Here’s a man who spends a big hunk of his life making sure
that planes stay safely in the air until pilots are ready to land. When we really
care about something, we should seek to answer the why and what if questions
that always emerge. That was the message I heard from University of Arizona
communication theorist Judee Burgoon when I talked with her in my series of
interviews, Conversations with Communication Theorists.1 If we care about the fascinating subject of communication, she suggested, we’ve got to “do theory.”
WHAT IS A THEORY AND WHAT DOES IT DO?
In earlier editions I’ve used theory as “an umbrella term for all careful, systematic, and self-conscious discussion and analysis of communication phenomena,” a deinition offered by University of Minnesota communication professor
Ernest Bormann.2 I like this deinition because it’s general enough to cover the
diverse theories presented in this book. Yet the description is so broad that it
doesn’t give us any direction on how we might construct a theory, nor does it
offer a way to igure out when thoughts or statements about communication
haven’t attained that status. If I call any idea a “theory,” does saying it’s so make
it so?
In my discussion with Judee Burgoon, she suggested that a theory is nothing
more than a “set of systematic hunches about the way things operate.”3 Since
Burgoon is the most frequently cited female scholar in the ield of communica2
CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
3
From The Big Book of Hell © 1990 by Matt Groening. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission of Pantheon
Books, a division of Random House, NY. Courtesy of Acme Features Syndicate.
tion, I was intrigued by her unexpected use of the nontechnical term hunch.
Would it therefore be legitimate to entitle the book you’re reading Communication
Hunches? She assured me that it would, quickly adding that they should be
“informed hunches.” So for Burgoon, a theory consists of a set of systematic,
informed hunches about the way things work. In the rest of this section, I’ll examine
the three key features of Burgoon’s notion of a theory. First, I’ll focus on the idea
that theory consists of a set of hunches. But a set of hunches is only a starting
point. Second, I’ll discuss what it means to say that those hunches have to be
4
OVERVIEW
informed. Last, I’ll highlight the notion that the hunches have to be systematic.
Let’s look briely at the meaning of each of these core concepts of theory.
A Set of Hunches
Theory
A set of systematic, informed hunches about
the way things work.
If a theory is a set of hunches, it means we aren’t yet sure we have the answer.
When there’s no puzzle to be solved or the explanation is obvious, there’s no
need to develop a theory. Theories always involve an element of speculation, or
conjecture. Being a theorist is risky business because theories go beyond accepted
wisdom. Once you become a theorist you probably hope that all thinking people
will eventually embrace the trial balloon that you’ve launched, but when you
irst loat your theory, it’s deinitely in the hunch category.
By referring to a plural “set of hunches” rather than a single “hunch,” Burgoon makes it clear that a theory is not just one inspired thought or an isolated
idea. The young theorist in the cartoon may be quite sure that dogs and bees
can smell fear, but that isolated conviction isn’t a theory. A developed theory
offers some sort of explanation. For example, how are bees and dogs able to sniff
out fright? Perhaps the scent of sweaty palms that comes from high anxiety is
qualitatively different than the odor of people perspiring from hard work. A
theory will also give some indication of scope. Do only dogs and bees possess
this keen sense of smell, or do butterlies and kittens have it as well? Theory
construction involves multiple hunches.
Informed Hunches
Bormann’s description of creating communication theory calls for a careful,
self-conscious analysis of communication phenomena, but Burgoon’s deinition
asks for more. It’s not enough simply to think carefully about an idea; a theorist’s hunches should be informed. Working on a hunch that a penny thrown
from the Empire State Building will become deeply embedded in the sidewalk,
the young theorist has a responsibility to check it out. Before developing a
theory, there are articles to read, people to talk to, actions to observe, or experiments to run, all of which can cast light on the subject. At the very least, a
communication theorist should be familiar with alternative explanations and
interpretations of the type of communication they are studying. (Young Theorist, have you heard the story of Galileo dropping an apple from the Leaning
Tower of Pisa?)
Pepperdine University communication professor Fred Casmir’s description
of theory parallels Burgoon’s call for multiple informed hunches:
Theories are sometimes deined as guesses—but signiicantly as “educated”
guesses. Theories are not merely based on vague impressions nor are they accidental by-products of life. Theories tend to result when their creators have prepared
themselves to discover something in their environment, which triggers the process
of theory construction.4
Hunches That Are Systematic
Most scholars reserve the term theory for an integrated system of concepts. A
theory not only lays out multiple ideas, but also speciies the relationships among
CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
5
them. In common parlance, it connects the dots. The links among the informed
hunches are clearly drawn so that a whole pattern emerges.
None of the young theories in the cartoon rise to this standard. Since most
of the nine are presented as one-shot claims, they aren’t part of a conceptual
framework. One possible exception is the dual speculation that “adults are really
Martians, and they’re up to no good.” But the connecting word and doesn’t really
show the relationship of grown-ups’ unsavory activity and their hypothesized
other-world origin. To do that, the young theorist could speculate about the basic
character of Martians, how they got here, why their behavior is suspicious, and
whether today’s youth will turn into aliens when they become parents. A theory
would then tie together all of these ideas into a uniied whole. As you read about
any theory covered in this book, you have a right to expect a set of systematic,
informed hunches.
Images of Theory
In response to the question, What is a theory? I’ve presented a verbal deinition.
Many of us are visual learners as well and would appreciate a concrete image
that helps us understand what a theory is and does. I’ll therefore present three
metaphors that I ind helpful, but will also note how an over-reliance on these
representations of theory might lead us astray.
Theories as Nets: Philosopher of science Karl Popper says that “theories are nets
cast to catch what we call ‘the world’ . . . . We endeavor to make the mesh ever
iner and iner.”5 I appreciate this metaphor because it highlights the ongoing labor
of the theorist as a type of deep-sea angler. For serious scholars, theories are the
tools of the trade. The term the world can be interpreted as everything that goes on
under the sun—thus requiring a grand theory that applies to all communication, all
the time. Conversely, catching the world could be construed as calling for numerous
special theories—different kinds of small nets to capture distinct types of communication in local situations. Yet either way, the quest for iner-meshed nets is somewhat disturbing because the study of communication is about people rather than
schools of ish. The idea that theories could be woven so tightly that they’d snag
everything that humans think, say, or do strikes me as naive. The possibility also
raises questions about our freedom to choose some actions and reject others.
Theories as Lenses: Many scholars see their theoretical constructions as similar
to the lens of a camera or a pair of glasses as opposed to a mirror that accurately
relects the world out there. The lens imagery highlights the idea that theories shape
our perception by focusing attention on some features of communication while
ignoring other features, or at least pushing them into the background. Two theorists
could analyze the same communication event—an argument, perhaps—and
depending on the lens each uses, one theorist may view this speech act as a breakdown of communication or the breakup of a relationship, while the other theorist
will see it as democracy in action. For me, the danger of the lens metaphor is that
we might regard what is seen through the glass as so dependent on the theoretical
stance of the viewer that we abandon any attempt to discern what is real or true.
Theories as Maps: I use this image when I describe the First Look text to others.
Within this analogy, communication theories are maps of the way communication works. The truth they depict may have to do with objective behaviors “out
there” or subjective meanings inside our heads. Either way we need to have
6
OVERVIEW
theory to guide us through unfamiliar territory. In that sense this book of theories
is like a scenic atlas that pulls together 32 must-see locations. It’s the kind of
travel guide that presents a close-up view of each site. I would caution, however,
that the map is not the territory.6 A static theory, like a still photograph, can never
fully portray the richness of interaction between people that is constantly changing, always more varied, and inevitably more complicated than what any theory
can chart. As a person intrigued with communication, aren’t you glad it’s
this way?
WHAT IS COMMUNICATION?
To ask this question is to invite controversy and raise expectations that can’t be
met. Frank Dance, the University of Denver scholar credited for publishing the
irst comprehensive book on communication theory, cataloged more than 120 definitions of communication—and that was more than 40 years ago.7 Communication
scholars have suggested many more since then, yet no single deinition has risen
to the top and become the standard within the ield of communication. When it
comes to deining what it is we study, there’s little discipline in the discipline.
At the conclusion of his study, Dance suggested that we’re “trying to make
the concept of communication do too much work for us.”8 Other communication
theorists agree, noting that when the term is used to describe almost every kind
of human interaction, it’s seriously overburdened. Michigan Tech University
communication professor Jennifer Slack brings a splash of reality to attempts to
draw deinitive lines around what it is that our theories and research cover. She
declares that “there is no single, absolute essence of communication that adequately explains the phenomena we study. Such a deinition does not exist; neither is it merely awaiting the next brightest communication scholar to nail it
down once and for all.”9
Despite the pitfalls of trying to deine communication in an all-inclusive way,
it seems to me that students who are willing to spend a big chunk of their college education studying communication deserve a description of what it is
they’re looking at. Rather than giving the inal word on what human activities
can be legitimately referred to as communication, this designation would highlight
the essential features of communication that shouldn’t be missed. So for starters
I offer this working deinition:
Communication is the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a
response.
Communication
The relational process of
creating and interpreting
messages that elicit a response.
To the extent that there is redeeming value in this statement, it lies in drawing
your attention to ive features of communication that you’ll run across repeatedly
as you read about the theories in the ield. In the rest of this section I’ll lesh out
these concepts.
1. Messages
Messages are at the very core of communication study. University of Colorado
communication professor Robert Craig says that communication involves
“talking and listening, writing and reading, performing and witnessing, or,
more generally, doing anything that involves ‘messages’ in any medium or
situation.”10
CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
Text
A record of a message
that can be analyzed by
others; for example, a
book, film, photograph,
or any transcript or recording of a speech or
broadcast.
7
When academic areas such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, political
science, literature, and philosophy deal with human symbolic activity, they intersect with the study of communication. The visual image of this intersection of
interests has prompted some to refer to communication as a crossroads discipline.
The difference is that communication scholars are parked at the junction focusing
on messages, whereas other disciplines are just passing through on their way to
other destinations. All of the theories covered in this book deal speciically with
messages.
Communication theorists use the word text as a synonym for a message that
can be studied, regardless of the medium. This book is a text. So is a verbatim
transcript of a conversation with your instructor, a recorded presidential news
conference, a silent YouTube video, or a Kelly Clarkson song on your iPod. To
illustrate the following four parts of the deinition, suppose you received this
cryptic text message from a close, same-sex friend: “Pat and I spent the night
together.” You immediately know that the name Pat refers to the person with
whom you have an ongoing romantic relationship. An analysis of this text and
the context surrounding its transmission provides a useful case study for examining the essential features of communication.
2. Creation of Messages
This phrase in the working deinition indicates that the content and form of a
text are usually constructed, invented, planned, crafted, constituted, selected, or
adopted by the communicator. Each of these terms is used in one or more of the
theories I describe, and they all imply that the communicator is usually making
a conscious choice of message form and substance. For whatever reason, your
friend sent a text message rather than meeting face-to-face, calling you on the
phone, sending an email, or writing a note. Your friend also chose the seven
words that were transmitted to your cell phone. There is a long history of
textual analysis in the ield of communication, wherein the rhetorical critic
looks for clues in the message to discern the motivation and strategy of the
person who created the message.
There are, of course, many times when we speak, write, or gesture in seemingly mindless ways—activities that are like driving on cruise control. These
are preprogrammed responses that were selected earlier and stored for later
use. In like manner, our repertoire of stock phrases such as thank you, no problem, whatever, or a string of swear words were chosen sometime in the past to
express our feelings, and over time have become habitual responses. Only
when we become more mindful of the nature and impact of our messages will
we have the ability to alter them. That’s why consciousness-raising is a goal of
ive or six of the theories I’ll present—each one seeks to increase our communication choices.
3. Interpretation of Messages
Messages do not interpret themselves. The meaning that a message holds for
both the creators and receivers doesn’t reside in the words that are spoken, written, or acted out. A truism among communication scholars is that words don’t
mean things, people mean things. Symbolic interactionist Herbert Blumer states its
8
OVERVIEW
implication: “Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings
they assign to those people or things.”11
What is the meaning of your friend’s text message? Does “spent the night
together” mean talking until all hours? Pulling an all-night study session? Sleeping
on the sofa? Making love? If it’s the latter, was Pat a willing or unwilling partner
(perhaps drunk or the victim of acquaintance rape)? How would your friend
characterize their sexual liaison? Recreational sex? A chance hookup? Friends with
beneits? Developing a close relationship? Falling in love? The start of a long-term commitment? Perhaps of more importance to you, how does Pat view it? What emotional meaning is behind the message for each of them? Satisfaction?
Disappointment? Surprise? The morning-after-the-night-before blahs? Gratefulness?
Guilt? Ecstasy? And inally, what does receiving this message through a digital
channel mean for you, your friendship, and your relationship with Pat? None of
these answers are in the message. Words and other symbols are polysemic—
they’re open to multiple interpretations.
4. A Relational Process
The Greek philosopher Heraclites observed that “one cannot step into the same
river twice.”12 These words illustrate the widespread acceptance among communication scholars that communication is a process. Much like a river, the low
of communication is always in lux, never completely the same, and can only be
described with reference to what went before and what is yet to come. This
means that the text message “Pat and I spent the night together” is not the whole
story. You’ll probably contact both your friend and Pat to ask the clarifying questions raised earlier. As they are answered or avoided, you’ll interpret the message
in a different way. That’s because communication is a process, not a freeze-frame
snapshot.
In the opening lines of her essay “Communication as Relationality,” University of Georgia rhetorical theorist Celeste Condit suggests that the communication process is more about relationships than it is about content.
Communication is a process of relating. This means it is not primarily or essentially a process of transferring information or of disseminating or circulating
signs (though these things can be identiied as happening within the process
of relating).13
Communication is a relational process not only because it takes place between
two or more persons, but also because it affects the nature of the connections
among those people. It’s obvious that the text message you received will inluence the triangle of relationships among you, Pat, and your (former?) friend. But
this is true in other forms of mediated communication as well. Television viewers and moviegoers have emotional responses to people they see on the screen.
And as businesses are discovering, even the impersonal recorded announcement
that “this call may be monitored for the purpose of quality control” has an
impact on how we regard their corporate persona.
5. Messages That Elicit a Response
This inal component of communication deals with the effect of the message
upon people who receive it. For whatever reason, if the message fails to stimulate
CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
9
any cognitive, emotional, or behavioral reaction, it seems pointless to refer to it
as communication. We often refer to such situations as a message “falling on deaf
ears” or the other person “turning a blind eye.” That nonresponse is different
than the prison warden’s oft-quoted line in Paul Newman’s classic ilm Cool
Hand Luke.14 When Luke repeatedly breaks the rules laid down by the warden,
this man who insists on being called Boss drawls, “Luke, what we have here is
a failure to communicate.” He’s wrong. Luke understands and actively resists
the clearly stated rules; the Boss responds violently to Luke’s insubordination
and his attempts to escape. Both men respond to the message of the other.
In like manner, surely you would respond to your friend’s cryptic message—
one way or another. In fact, the text seems to be crafted and sent in a way to
provoke a response. How closely your thoughts, feelings, words, or other reactions would match what your friend expected or intended is another matter. But
whether successful or not, the whole situation surrounding the text and context
of the message its the working deinition of communication that I hope will help
you frame your study of communication theory: Communication is the relational
process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response.
AN ARRANGEMENT OF IDEAS TO AID COMPREHENSION
Now that you have a basic understanding of what a communication theory is,
knowing how I’ve structured the book and arranged the theories can help you
grasp their content. That’s because I’ve organized the text to place a given theory
in a conceptual framework and situational context before I present it. After this
chapter, there are three more integrative chapters in the “Overview” division.
For Chapter 2, I’ve asked two leading communication scholars to analyze a
highly acclaimed TV ad in order to illustrate how half the theories in the book
are based on objective assumptions, while the other half are constructed using an
interpretive set of principles. Chapter 3 presents criteria for judging both kinds
of theory so you can make an informed evaluation of a theory’s worth rather
than relying solely on your gut reaction. Finally, Chapter 4 describes seven traditions of communication theory and research. When you know the family tree of
a theory, you can explain why it has a strong afinity with some theories but
doesn’t speak the same language as others.
Following this overview, there are 32 chapters that run 10–15 pages apiece, each
concentrating on a single theory. I think you’ll ind that the one-chapter, one-theory
format is user-friendly because it gives you a chance to focus on a single theory at
a time. This way they won’t all blur together in your mind. These chapters are
arranged into four major divisions according to the primary communication context
that they address. The theories in Division Two, “Interpersonal Communication,”
consider one-on-one interaction. Division Three, “Group and Public Communication,” deals with face-to-face involvement in collective settings. Division Four,
“Mass Communication,” pulls together theories that explore electronic and print
media. Division Five, “Cultural Context,” explores systems of shared meaning that
are so all-encompassing that we often fail to realize their impact upon us.
These four divisions are based on the fact that theories are tentative answers
to questions that occur to people as they mull over practical problems in speciic
situations. It therefore makes sense to group them according to the different
communication settings that usually prompt those questions. The organizational
10
OVERVIEW
plan I’ve described is like having four separately indexed ile cabinets. Although
there is no natural progression from one division to another, the plan provides a
convenient way to classify and retrieve the 32 theories.
Finally, Division Six, “Integration,” seeks to distill core ideas that are common to a number of theories. Ideas have power, and each theory is driven by
one or more ideas that may be shared by other theories from different communication contexts. For example, there’s at least one theory in each of the four
context divisions committed to the force of narrative. They each declare that
people respond to stories and dramatic imagery with which they can identify.
Reading about key concepts that cut across multiple theories wouldn’t mean
much to you now, but after you become familiar with a number of communication theories, it can be an eye-opening experience that also helps you review
what you’ve learned.
CHAPTER FEATURES TO ENLIVEN THEORY
In many of the chapters ahead, I use an extended example from life on a college
campus, a well-known communication event, or the conversations of characters
in movies, books, or TV shows. The main purpose of these illustrations is to
provide a mind’s-eye picture of how the theory works. The imagery will also
make the basic thrust of the theory easier to recall. But if you can think of a
situation in your own life where the theory is relevant, that personal application
will make it doubly interesting and memorable for you.
You might also want to see how others put the theories into practice. With
my students’ permission, I’ve weaved in their accounts of application for almost
all the theories featured in the text. I’m intrigued by the rich connections these
students make—ones I wouldn’t have thought of on my own. Some students
draw on scenes from short stories, novels, or movies. To see an annotated list
of feature ilm scenes that illustrate the theories, go to the book’s website, www.
airstlook.com, and under Theory Resources, click on Suggested Movie Clips.
I make a consistent effort to link each theory with its author. It takes both
wisdom and courage to successfully plant a theoretical lag. In a process similar
to the childhood game king-of-the-hill, as soon as a theorist constructs a theory
of communication, critics try to pull it down. That’s OK, because the value of
a theory is discerned by survival in the rough-and-tumble world of competitive
ideas. For this reason I always include a section in theory chapters labeled
“Critique.” Theorists who prevail deserve to have their names associated with
their creations.
There is a second reason for tying a theory to its author. Many of you will
do further study in communication, and a mastery of names like Deetz, Giles,
Walther, Baxter, Berger, and Burke will allow you to enter into the dialogue
without being at a disadvantage. Ignoring the names of theorists could prove to
be false economy in the long run.
Don’t overlook the three features at the end of each chapter. The queries
under the title “Questions to Sharpen Your Focus” will help you mull over key
points of the theory. They can be answered by pulling together information from
this text and from the text of your life. The italicized words in each question
highlight terms you need to know in order to understand the theory. Whenever
you see a picture of the theorist, it’s captured from one of my Conversations with
CHAPTER 1: LAUNCHING YOUR STUDY OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
11
Communication Theorists and shown alongside a brief description of what we
talked about. You can view these 6- to 8-minute interviews at www.airstlook
.com. And the feature entitled “A Second Look” offers an annotated bibliography
of resources should you desire to know more about the theory. You’ll ind it a
good place to start if you are writing a research paper on the theory or are
intrigued with a particular aspect of it.
You’ve already seen the last feature I’ll mention. In every chapter and section
introduction I include a cartoon for your learning and enjoyment. Cartoonists
are often modern-day prophets. Their incisive wit can illustrate a feature of the
theory in a way that’s more instructive and memorable than a few extra paragraphs would be. In addition to enjoying their humor, you can use the cartoons
as minitests of comprehension. Unlike my comments on “Young Theories” earlier in this chapter, I usually don’t refer to the art or the caption that goes with
it. So if you can’t igure out why a particular cartoon appears where it does,
make a renewed effort to grasp the theorist’s ideas.
Some students are afraid to try. Like travelers whose eyes glaze over at the
sight of a road map, they have a phobia about theories that seek to explain
human intentions and behavior. I sympathize with their qualms and misgivings,
but I ind that the theories in this book haven’t dehydrated my life or made it
more confusing. On the contrary, they add clarity and provide a sense of competence as I communicate with others. I hope they do that for you as well.
Every so often a student will ask me, “Do you really think about communication theory when you’re talking to someone?” My answer is “Yes, but not all
the time.” Like everyone else, I often say things while speaking on automatic
pilot—words, phrases, sentences, descriptions rolling off my tongue without conscious thought. Old habits die hard. But when I’m in a new setting or the conversational stakes are high, I start to think strategically. And that’s when the
applied wisdom of theories that it the situation comes to mind. By midterm,
many of my students discover they’re thinking that way as well. That’s my wish
for you as you launch your study of communication theory.
QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS
1. Suppose you share the aircraft mechanic’s suspicion that scholars who create
theories would be all thumbs working on a plane’s ailerons or engine. What
would it take to transform your hunch into a theory?
2. Which metaphor offered to capture the meaning of theory do you ind most
helpful—theory as a net, a lens, or a map? Can you think of another image that
you could use to explain to a friend what this course is about?
3. Suppose you want to study the effects of yawns during intimate conversations. Would your research fall under communication as deined as the relational
process of creating and interpreting messages to elicit a response? If not, how would
you change the deinition to make it include your interest?
4. You come to this course with a vast array of communication experiences in
interpersonal, group and public, mass media, and intercultural contexts. What are the
communication questions you want to answer, puzzles you want to solve, problems
you want to ix?
12
OVERVIEW
A SECOND LOOK
Recommended resource: Gregory Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas (eds.), Communication as . . . Perspectives on Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006.
Diverse deinitions of communication: Frank E.X. Dance, “The Concept of Communication,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, 1970, pp. 201–210.
Focus on messages: George Gerbner, “Mass Media and Human Communication Theory,”
in Frank E.X. Dance, Human Communication Theory: Original Essays, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, 1967, pp. 40–60.
Communication as human symbolic interaction: Gary Cronkhite, “On the Focus, Scope and
Coherence of the Study of Human Communication,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 72,
No. 3, 1986, pp. 231–246.
Theories of communication as practical: J. Kevin Barge, “Practical Theory as Mapping,
Engaged Relection, and Transformative Practice,” Communication Theory, Vol. 11, 2001,
pp. 5–13.
Integration of scientiic and humanistic theories: Karl Erik Rosengren, “From Field to Frog
Ponds,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1993, pp. 6–17.
Multidimensional view of theory: James A. Anderson and Geoffrey Baym, “Philosophies
and Philosophic Issues in Communication, 1995–2004,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 54,
2004, pp. 589–615.
Differences in theoretical scope: Ernest Bormann, Communication Theory, Shefield, Salem,
WI, 1989, pp. 81–101.
CHAPTER
2
Talk About Theory
Behavioral scientist
A scholar who applies
the scientific method to
describe, predict, and
explain recurring forms
of human behavior.
Rhetorician
A scholar who studies the
ways in which symbolic
forms can be used to
identify with people, or
to persuade them toward
a certain point of view.
I met Glenn Sparks and Marty Medhurst my irst year teaching at Wheaton College. Glenn and Marty were friends who signed up for my undergraduate persuasion course. As students, both men were interested in broadcast media. After
graduating from Wheaton, each went on for a master’s degree at Northern Illinois University. Each then earned a doctorate at a different university, and both
are now nationally recognized communication scholars. Glenn is on the faculty
at Purdue University; Marty is at Baylor University.
Despite their similar backgrounds and interests, Glenn and Marty are quite
different in their approaches to communication. Glenn calls himself a behavioral
scientist, while Marty refers to himself as a rhetorician. Glenn’s training was in
empirical research; Marty was schooled in rhetorical theory and criticism. Glenn
conducts experiments; Marty interprets texts.
To understand the theories ahead, you need to irst grasp the crucial differences between the objective and interpretive approaches to communication. As
a way to introduce the distinctions, I asked Glenn and Marty to bring their
scholarship to bear on a television commercial that was irst aired a few months
before Super Bowl XLI. Both the commercial and the game featured football star
Peyton Manning.
TWO COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS VIEW A DIEHARD FAN
In 1998 Peyton Manning was drafted to play quarterback for the Indianapolis
Colts. A year earlier, MasterCard had launched its “Priceless” campaign, which
suggests that the credit card company has both a sense of humor and the wisdom
to realize that some of the best things in life can’t be bought, no matter what your
credit limit. Nine years later, Peyton and “Priceless” commercials were still going
strong. Manning was poised to lead the Colts to a 2007 Super Bowl victory, and
MasterCard was using his star power to project the company’s image. Adweek sets
the scene:
Peyton Manning is one of the few superstar athletes who shows he can act in his
commercials. We’ve seen his cheerleader-for-the-everyday guy before. This time
he’s rooting for the waitress who drops her tray, the latte guy who’s burned by
escaping steam, and the movers who let a piano escape down a hill. “That’s okay
guys. They’re not saying ‘boo,’ they’re saying ‘mooooooovers.’ ”1
The fourth scene, captured in Figure 2–1, is Manning shouting encouragement to the paperboy who made an errant throw: “That’s alright, Bobby. You’ve
13
14
OVERVIEW
FIGURE 2–1
Diehard Fan Peyton Manning Shouting Encouragement
Photo © 2007 MasterCard. All rights reserved. No photo reproduction without the prior written
consent of MasterCard. Reprinted courtesy of McCann Erickson.
still got the best arm in the neighborhood.” All four scenes illustrate the spoken
and written message of the ad: Support for your team is priceless—especially
when they’ve screwed up. It’s something money can’t buy. “For everything else,
there’s MasterCard.” Social scientist Glenn and rhetorical critic Marty take different theoretical approaches as they analyze how the ad works.
Glenn: An Objective Approach
Objective approach
The assumption that truth
is singular and is accessible through unbiased
sensory observation;
committed to uncovering
cause-and-effect relationships.
Source credibility
Perceived competence
and trustworthiness of a
speaker or writer that
affects how the message
is received.
The distinguishing feature of this commercial is football superstar Peyton Manning. The folks at MasterCard are obviously convinced that his celebrity appeal
will rub off on the public image of their credit card. As a social scientist, I’d like
to discover if they are right. The answer will help scholars and advertisers better
predict what persuasive techniques really work. If this “branding” strategy
proves effective, I would also want to ind out why it does. Objective researchers
want to explain as well as predict.
Theory is an essential tool in the scientiic effort to predict and explain. For
this type of commercial, I might turn to source credibility theory, proposed by Carl
Hovland and Walter Weiss as part of the Yale Attitude project on persuasion.2
They suggest that expertise and trustworthiness are the two main ingredients of
perceived credibility. For football fans who watched the ad, there’s no question
that Peyton Manning is a highly competent quarterback. And cheering on ordinary people who are having a bad day may suggest that he’s on our side and
won’t steer us wrong. The central premise of source credibility theory is that
people we view as trusted experts will be much more effective in their attempts
to persuade us than sources we distrust or regard as incompetent.
Herbert Kelman’s theory of opinion change also offers insight. Kelman said
that when people forge a bond of identiication with a highly attractive igure like
Manning, they’ll gladly embrace his persuasive pitch.3 In contrast to many top
CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY
Identification
A perceived role relationship that affects selfimage and attitudes;
based on attractiveness
of the role model and
sustained if the relationship remains salient.
15
athletes who come across as surly, uptight, or egotistical, Manning is upbeat, relaxed,
and encouraging as he cheers on people like us who don’t have his fan base.
As a scientist, however, I can’t just assume that this commercial is persuasive
and the theories I applied are correct. Manning’s expertise is football—not
inance. Do viewers transfer his expertise from the gridiron to credit cards? I’d
want an objective test to ind out if celebrity appeals really work. I might ind
out if this ad campaign was followed by either an increase in new card applications or a spike in the number of charges made by MasterCard users. Or I could
test whether the ad has the same effect on viewers who don’t know who Manning is—he’s never identiied in the ad. Testing the audience response is a crucial
scientiic enterprise. Even though a theory might sound plausible, we can’t be
sure it’s valid until it’s been tested. In science, theory and research walk hand
in hand.
Marty: An Interpretive Approach
Interpretive approach
The linguistic work of assigning meaning or value
to communicative texts;
assumes that multiple
meanings or truths are
possible.
Burke’s dramatistic
pentad
A five-pronged method
of rhetorical criticism to
analyze a speaker’s persuasive strategy—act,
scene, agent, agency,
purpose.
I see this ad for MasterCard, starring NFL quarterback Peyton Manning, as an
attempt to identify manliness with money. The ad achieves its effect by inviting the
viewer to become part of the “team” being instructed by “Coach” Manning. To
become part of the team, one must adopt the attitudes and actions of the coach.
Kenneth Burke’s theory of dramatism helps us understand the symbolic action.
Since we can consider this 30-second commercial a mini-drama, Burke’s
dramatistic pentad of act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose can help provide a
framework for interpretation.4 Peyton Manning is the coach—the agent. Everyday activities such as eating brunch, drinking coffee, moving furniture, and
retrieving the morning paper are the background—the scene. Coaching people
in the proper attitude is what Manning does in each scene—the act. Using the
typical jargon and gestures of a football coach is the vehicle—the agency. And
the goal is the acquisition and use of a MasterCard—the purpose.
Burke holds that as a drama develops, the symbolic action moves through
different stages. He encourages critics to look at the symbolic forms as they move
“from what through what to what.”5 In this ad, the symbolic action starts with
confusion—Wendy dropping the tray of food. It moves through pain and destruction—Johnny scalded by steam, the mover dropping the piano, the paperboy
breaking the window. And by the end, the drama arrives at manliness, money,
and acceptance—football helmets crashing together (manliness) and forming the
MasterCard logo (money), Johnny giving a thumbs-up signal (acceptance).
What’s important to notice is that a symbolic transformation has taken place.
Throughout most of the ad, Manning is “coaching” the right attitude. We hear
it in his language (“You’re the man; Rub some dirt on it; It’s alright, Bobby”).
We see it in his gestures (arms raised, palms up, clapping, pointing). Yet by the
end of the ad the transformation is complete. It is Johnny who is doing the
coaching, with a thumbs-up gesture that signals his acceptance of the right attitude and his adoption of the right action—getting a MasterCard. A symbolic
equivalence has been established between being manly (like a pro football player)
and being in the money (with MasterCard).
The message of this ad is clear. To be a man is to have the right attitude about
the little trials of life; it is to be part of the home team. Acquiring a MasterCard
is a way of symbolically identifying with the tough guys and achieving victory
over the obstacles that stand between a man and his goals.
16
OVERVIEW
OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE WORLDVIEWS: SORTING OUT THE LABELS
Humanistic scholarship
Study of what it’s like to
be another person in a
specific time and place;
assumes there are few
important panhuman
similarities.
Although both of these scholars focus on the role of Peyton Manning in promoting MasterCard, Glenn’s and Marty’s approaches to communication study clearly
differ in starting point, method, and conclusion. Glenn is a social scientist who
works hard to be objective. When I refer to theorists and researchers like Glenn
throughout the book, I’ll use the terms scientist and objective scholar interchangeably. Marty is a rhetorical critic who does interpretive study. Here the
labels get tricky.
While it’s true that all rhetorical critics do interpretive analysis, not all interpretive scholars are rhetoricians. Most (including Marty) are humanists who
study what it’s like to be another person in a speciic time and place. But a growing number of postmodern communication theorists reject that tradition. These
interpretive scholars refer to themselves with a bewildering variety of brand
names: hermeneuticists, poststructuralists, deconstructivists, phenomenologists,
cultural studies researchers, and social action theorists, as well as combinations
of these terms. Writing from this postmodernist perspective, University of Utah
theorist James Anderson observes:
With this very large number of interpretive communities, names are contentious,
border patrol is hopeless and crossovers continuous. Members, however, often see
real differences.6
All of these scholars, including Marty, do interpretive analysis—scholarship
concerned with meaning—yet there’s no common term like scientist that includes
them all. So from this point on I’ll use the designation interpretive scholars or the
noun form interpreters to refer to the entire group and use rhetoricians, humanists,
postmodernists, or critical scholars only when I’m singling out a particular
subgroup.
The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists relect contrasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of human
nature, questions of value, and the purpose of having theory. The rest of this
chapter sketches out these differences.
WAYS OF KNOWING: DISCOVERING TRUTH OR CREATING MULTIPLE REALITIES?
Epistemology
The study of the origin,
nature, method, and limits of knowledge.
How do we know what we know, if we know it at all? This is the central question addressed by a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. You may have
been in school for a dozen-plus years, read assignments, written papers, and
taken tests without ever delving into the issue What is truth? With or without
in-depth study of the issue, however, we all inevitably make assumptions about
the nature of knowledge.
Scientists assume that Truth is singular. They see a single, timeless reality
“out there” that’s not dependent on local conditions. It’s waiting to be discovered
through the ive senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. Since the raw
sensory data of the world is accessible to any competent observer, science seeks
to be bias-free, with no ax to grind. The evidence speaks for itself. As Galileo
observed, anyone could see through his telescope. Of course, no one person can
know it all, so individual researchers pool their indings and build a collective
body of knowledge about how the world works.
CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY
17
Scientists consider good theories to be those that are faithful representations
of an underlying reality—mirrors of nature. They are conident that once a principle is discovered and validated, it will continue to hold true as long as conditions remain relatively the same. That’s why Glenn believes the credibility of a
message source can explain why other media messages succeed or fail.
Interpretive scholars seek truth as well, but many interpreters regard that
truth as socially constructed through communication. They believe language creates social realities that are always in lux rather than revealing or representing
ixed principles or relationships in a world that doesn’t change. Knowledge is
always viewed from a particular standpoint. A word, a gesture, or an act may
have constancy within a given community, but it’s dangerous to assume that
interpretations can cross lines of time and space.
Texts never interpret themselves. Most of these scholars, in fact, hold that
truth is largely subjective—that meaning is highly interpretive. But rhetorical
critics like Marty are not relativists, arbitrarily assigning meaning on a whim.
They do maintain, however, that objectivity is a myth; we can never entirely
separate the knower from the known.
Convinced that meaning is in the mind rather than in the verbal sign, interpreters are comfortable with the notion that a text may have multiple meanings.
Rhetorical critics are successful when they get others to view a text through their
interpretive lens—to adopt a new perspective on the world. For example, did
Marty convince you that the MasterCard ad was an attempt to equate manliness
with money? As Anderson notes, “Truth is a struggle, not a status.”7
HUMAN NATURE: DETERMINISM OR FREE WILL?
Determinism
The assumption that behavior is caused by heredity and environment.
One of the great philosophical debates throughout history revolves around the
question of human choice.8 Hard-line determinists claim that every move we make
is the result of heredity (“biology is destiny”) and environment (“pleasure stamps
in, pain stamps out”). On the other hand, free-will purists insist that every human
act is ultimately voluntary (“I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my
soul”9). Although few communication theorists are comfortable with either
extreme, most tend to line up on one side or the other. Scientists stress the forces
that shape human behavior; interpretive scholars focus on conscious choices
made by individuals.
The difference between these two views of human nature inevitably creeps into
the language people use to explain what they do. Individuals who feel like puppets
on strings say, “I had to . . . ,” while people who feel they pull their own strings
say, “I decided to . . . .” The irst group speaks in a passive voice: “I was distracted
from studying by the argument at the next table.” The second group speaks in an
active voice: “I stopped studying to listen to the argument at the next table.”
In the same way, the language of scholarship often relects theorists’ views
of human nature. Behavioral scientists usually describe human conduct as
occurring because of forces outside the individual’s awareness. Their causal
explanations tend not to include appeals to mental reasoning or conscious
choice. They usually describe behavior as the response to a prior stimulus. Note
that Kelman’s theory of opinion change that Glenn cited suggests a cause-andeffect inevitability in the persuasion process. We will be swayed by those we
ind attractive.
18
OVERVIEW
DILBERT © Scott Adams/Dist. by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
In contrast, interpretive scholars tend to use explanatory phrases such as in
order to and so that because they attribute a person’s action to conscious intent.
Their choice of words suggests that people are free agents who could decide to
respond differently under an identical set of circumstances. Marty, for example,
uses the language of voluntary action rather than knee-jerk behavior when he
writes about the ad inviting the viewer to become part of the team and Johnny
adopting the right attitude. The consistent interpreter doesn’t ask why Johnny
made that choice. As Anderson explains, “True choice demands to be its own
cause and its own explanation.”10
Human choice is therefore problematic for the behavioral scientist because
as individual freedom goes up, predictability of behavior goes down. Conversely,
the roots of humanism are threatened by a highly restricted view of human
choice. In an impassioned plea, British author C. S. Lewis exposes the paradox
of stripping away people’s freedom and yet expecting them to exercise responsible choice:
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and expect of them virtue and
enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to ind traitors in our midst. We
castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.11
Lewis assumes that signiicant decisions are value laden; interpretive scholars
would agree.
CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY
19
THE HIGHEST VALUE: OBJECTIVITY OR EMANCIPATION?
Empirical evidence
Data collected through
direct observation.
Emancipation
Liberation from any form
of political, economic,
racial, religious, or sexual oppression; empowerment.
When we talk about values, we are discussing priorities, questions of relative
worth.12 Values are the trafic lights of our lives that guide what we think, feel,
and do. The professional values of communication theorists relect the commitments they’ve made concerning knowledge and human nature. Since most social
scientists hold to a distinction between the “knower” and the “known,” they
place value on objectivity that’s not biased by ideological commitments. Because
humanists and others in the interpretive camp believe that the ability to choose
is what separates humanity from the rest of creation, they value scholarship that
expands the range of free choice.
As a behavioral scientist, Glenn works hard to maintain his objectivity. He
is a man with strong moral and spiritual convictions, and these may inluence
the topics he studies. But he doesn’t want his personal values to distort reality or confuse what is with what he thinks ought to be. As you can see from
Glenn’s call for objective testing, he is frustrated when theorists offer no empirical evidence for their claims or don’t even suggest a way in which their ideas
could be validated by an independent observer. He is even more upset when
he hears of researchers who fudge the indings of their studies to shore up
questionable hypotheses. Glenn shares the research values of Harvard sociologist George Homans—to let the evidence speak for itself: “When nature,
however stretched out on the rack, still has a chance to say ‘no’—then the
subject is science.”13
Marty is aware of his own ideology and is not afraid to bring his values to
bear upon a communication text and come under scrutiny. By pointing out the
subtle equating of manliness with money, Marty creates an awareness that this
is more than a humorous, feel-good spot. Although he doesn’t take an overtly
critical stance toward advertising or the capitalist system, his insight is a resource
for viewers that enables them to laugh not only at Peyton’s over-the-top support
for his “team,” but also at the underlying economic boosterism in the ad. Critical interpreters value socially relevant research that seeks to liberate people from
oppression of any sort—economic, political, religious, emotional, or any other
type. They decry the detached stance of scientists who refuse to take responsibility for the results of their work. Whatever the pursuit—a Manhattan Project to
split the atom, a Genome Project to map human genes, or a class project to analyze the effectiveness of an ad—critical interpreters insist that knowledge is
never neutral. “There is no safe harbor in which researchers can avoid the power
structure.”14
In the heading for this section, I’ve contrasted the primary values of scientiic
and interpretive scholars by using the labels objectivity and emancipation. University of Colorado communication professor Stan Deetz frames the issue somewhat
differently. He says that every general communication theory has two priorities—effectiveness and participation.15 Effectiveness is concerned with successfully
communicating information, ideas, and meaning to others. It also includes persuasion. Participation is concerned with increasing the possibility that all points
of view will affect collective decisions and individuals being open to new ideas.
It also encourages difference, opposition, and independence. The value question
is Which concern has higher priority? Objective theorists usually foreground effectiveness and relegate participation to the background. Interpretive theorists tend
to focus on participation and downplay effectiveness.
20
OVERVIEW
PURPOSE OF THEORY: UNIVERSAL LAWS OR INTERPRETIVE GUIDES?
Even if Glenn and Marty could agree on the nature of knowledge, the extent of
human autonomy, and the ultimate values of scholarship, their words would still
sound strange to each other because they use distinct vocabularies to accomplish
different goals. As a behavioral scientist, Glenn is working to pin down universal
laws of human behavior that cover a variety of situations. As a rhetorical critic,
Marty strives to interpret a particular communication text in a speciic context.
If these two scholars were engaged in fashion design rather than research
design, Glenn would probably tailor a coat suitable for many occasions that covers everybody well—one size its all. Marty might apply principles of fashion
design to style a coat that makes an individual statement for a single client—a
one-of-a-kind, custom creation. Glenn adopts a theory and then tests it to see if it
covers everyone. Marty uses theory to make sense of unique communication
events.
Since theory testing is the basic activity of the behavioral scientist, Glenn starts
with a hunch about how the world works—perhaps the idea that source credibility enhances persuasion. He then crafts a tightly worded hypothesis that temporarily commits him to a speciic prediction. As an empiricist, he can never completely
“prove” that he has made the right gamble; he can only show in test after test that
his behavioral bet pays off. If repeated studies uphold his hypothesis, he can more
conidently predict which media ads will be effective, explain why, and make
recommendations on how practitioners can increase their credibility.
The interpretive scholar explores the web of meaning that constitutes human
existence. When Marty creates scholarship, he isn’t trying to prove theory. However, he sometimes uses the work of rhetorical theorists like Kenneth Burke to
inform his interpretation of the aural and visual texts of people’s lives. Robert
Ivie, former editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, suggests that rhetorical critics ought to use theory this way:
We cannot conduct rhetorical criticism of social reality without beneit of a guiding
rhetorical theory that tells us generally what to look for in social practice, what to
make of it, and whether to consider it signiicant.16
OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Why is it important to grasp the differences between objective and interpretive
scholarship? The irst answer is because you can’t fully understand a theory if
you aren’t familiar with its underlying assumptions about truth, human nature,
the purpose of the theory, and its values. If you aren’t, things can get confusing
fast. It’s like the time my wife, Jeanie, and I were walking around the Art Institute of Chicago, enjoying the work of French impressionists who painted realistic scenes that I could recognize. Then I wandered into a room dedicated to
abstract expressionism. The paintings seemed bizarre and made no sense to me.
I was bewildered and somewhat disdainful until Jeanie, who is an artist, explained
the goals these painters had and the techniques they used to achieve them. So
too with interpretive and objective communication theories. Right now you are
probably more familiar and comfortable with one approach than you are with
the other. But when you understand what each type of theorist is about, your
comfort zone will expand and your confusion will diminish.
CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY
Metatheory
Theory about theory; the
stated or inherent assumptions made when creating
a theory.
21
There’s another reason to master these metatheoretical differences. After
exposure to a dozen or more theories, you may ind that they begin to blur
together in your mind. Classifying them as scientiic or interpretive is a good way
to keep them straight. It’s somewhat like sorting 52 cards into suits—spades,
hearts, diamonds, and clubs. In most sophisticated card games, the distinction is
crucial. By the end of the course you could have up to 32 cards in your deck of
communication theories. Being able to sort them in multiple ways is a good way
to show yourself and your professor that you’ve mastered the material. When
you can compare and contrast theories on the basis of their interpretive or objective worldview, you’ve begun an integration that’s more impressive than rote
memorization.
Understanding the objective/interpretive choice points I’ve described can
also help you decide the direction you want to take in your remaining course
work. Some concentrations in the ield of communication tend to have either a
scientiic or an interpretive bias. For example, all the theories I present in the
relationship development, inluence, and media effects sections of the book are
proposed by objective scholars. Conversely, most of the theories I cover in the
public rhetoric, media and culture, organizational communication, and gender
and communication sections are interpretive. You’ll want to see if this is true at
your school before you choose the speciic route you want to take.
Finally, theorists in both camps hope you’ll care because each group believes
that its brand of work holds promise for improving relationships and society.
The scientist is convinced that knowing the truth about how communication
works will give us a clearer picture of social reality. The interpreter is equally
sure that unearthing communicator motivation and hidden ideologies will
improve society by increasing free choice and discouraging unjust practices.
PLOTTING THEORIES ON AN OBJECTIVE-INTERPRETIVE SCALE
In this chapter I’ve introduced four important areas of difference between objective and interpretive communication scholars and the theories they create. A
basic appreciation of these distinctions will help you understand where likeminded thinkers are going and why they’ve chosen a particular path to get there.
But once you grasp how they differ, it will be helpful for you to realize that not
all theorists fall neatly into one category or the other. Many have a foot in both
camps. It’s more accurate to picture the objective and interpretive labels as anchoring the ends of a continuum, with theorists spread out along the scale.
Objective __________________________________________ Interpretive
Figure 2–2 displays my evaluation of where each theory I feature its on an
objective-interpretive continuum. For easier reference to positions on the scale, I’ve
numbered the ive columns at the bottom of the chart. In placing a theory, I’ve
tried to factor in choices the theorists have made about ways of knowing, human
nature, what they value most, and the purpose of theory. I’ve consulted a number
of scholars in the ield to get their “read” on appropriate placements. They didn’t
always agree, but in every case the discussion has sharpened my understanding
of theory and the issues to be considered in the process of creating one. What I
learned is relected in the chapters ahead.
22
OVERVIEW
Interpretive
Objective
Interpersonal Communication
Symbolic Interactionism
Coordinated Management of Meaning
Expectancy Violations Theory
Constructivism
Social Penetration Theory
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Social Information Processing Theory
Relational Dialectics
The Interactional View
Communication Privacy Management
Social Judgment Theory
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Group and Public Communication
•
Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
Symbolic Convergence Theory
Cultural Approach
Critical Theory of Communication Approach
The Rhetoric
Dramatism
Narrative Paradigm
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mass Communication
Media Ecology
Semiotics
Cultural Studies
Uses and Gratifications
Cultivation Theory
Agenda-Setting Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural Context
Communication Accommodation Theory
Face-Negotiation Theory
Speech Codes Theory
Genderlect Styles
Standpoint Theory
Muted Group Theory
•
•
•
1
2
3
•
•
4
•
5
FIGURE 2–2 Classiication of Communication Theories According to Objective/
Interpretive Worldview
Of course, the position of each dot won’t make much sense to you until
you’ve read about the theory. But by looking at the pattern of distribution you
can see that roughly half of the theories have an objective orientation, while the
other half relect an interpretive commitment. This 50–50 split matches the mix
of scholarship I see in our ield. When talking about relationships among the
theories and the common assumptions made by a group of theorists, your instructor may frequently refer back to this chart. So for easy reference, I’ve reproduced
the appropriate “slice” of the chart on the irst page of each chapter.
Now that you have an idea of the differences between objective and interpretive theories, you may wonder whether some of these theories are better than
CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY
23
others. I think so. Chapter 3, “Weighing the Words,” offers a set of six standards
you can use to judge the quality of objective theories, and a half dozen alternative
criteria to discern the worth of interpretive theories. By applying the appropriate
criteria, you can see if you agree with my evaluations.
QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS
1. Compare Glenn Sparks’ and Marty Medhurst’s approaches to the MasterCard commercial. Which analysis makes the most sense to you? Why?
2. How do scientists and interpretive scholars differ in their answers to the
question What is truth? Which perspective do you ind more satisfying?
3. How do you account for the wide-ranging diversity among types of interpretive theories (rhetorical, critical, humanistic, postmodern, etc.) as compared to the
relative uniformity of objective theories?
4. Think of the communication classes you’ve taken. Did an objective or interpretive orientation undergird each course? Was this due more to the nature of the
subject matter or to the professor’s point of view?
A SECOND LOOK
Recommended resource: James A. Anderson and Geoffrey Baym, “Philosophies and
Philosophic Issues in Communication 1995–2004,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 54, 2004,
pp. 589–615.
Metatheoretical overview: James A. Anderson, Communication Theory: Epistemological
Foundations, Guilford, New York, 1996, pp. 13–77.
Metatheory: Robert T. Craig, “Metatheory,” in Encyclopedia of Communication Theory,
Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2009, pp. 657–661.
Contemporary scientiic scholarship: Charles Berger, Michael Roloff, and David RoskosEwoldsen (eds.), Handbook of Communication Science, 2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2010.
Contemporary rhetorical scholarship: Sonja Foss, Karen Foss, and Robert Trapp, Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 3rd ed., Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL, 2000.
Defense of empirical scholarship: Robert Bostrom and Lewis Donohew, “The Case for
Empiricism: Clarifying Fundamental Issues in Communication Theory,” Communication
Monographs, Vol. 59, 1992, pp. 109–129.
Defense of interpretive scholarship: Arthur Bochner, “Perspectives on Inquiry II: Theories
and Stories,” in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 2nd ed., Mark Knapp and Gerald
Miller (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, pp. 21–41.
Scientiic research: Glenn Sparks, Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview, 3rd ed.,
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2009.
Rhetorical analysis: Martin J. Medhurst, “Mitt Romney, ‘Faith in America,’ and the
Dance of Religion and Politics in American Culture,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Vol. 12,
2009, pp. 195–221.
Critical approach to theory: Stanley Deetz, “The Role of Communication Studies,”
Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization, State University of New York, Albany, NY,
1992, pp. 65–90.
Research methods: Lawrence R. Frey, Carl H. Botan, and Gary L. Kreps, Investigating
Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods, 2nd ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA, 2000.
24
OVERVIEW
Bridging science and interpretation: Charles Pavitt, “Answering Questions Requesting
Scientiic Explanations for Communication,” Communication Theory, Vol. 10, 2000, pp. 379–
404.
Relationship between theory and research: Robert Bostrom, “Theories, Data and Communication Research,” Communication Monographs, Vol. 70, 2003, pp. 275–294.
For a historical perspective on the place of objective and interpretive theory
in the ield of communication, click on Theory Resources,
then Archive, and select Talk about Communication at
www.airstlook.com.
CHAPTER
3
Weighing the Words
In Chapter 2 we looked at two distinct approaches to communication theory—
objective and interpretive. Because the work of social scientists and interpreters
is so different, they often have trouble understanding and valuing their counterparts’ scholarship. This workplace tension parallels the struggle between ranchers and farmers in Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Broadway musical Oklahoma!
One song calls for understanding and cooperation:
The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends,
One man likes to push a plough,
The other likes to chase a cow,
But that’s no reason why they cain’t be friends.1
The problem, of course, is that farmers and ranchers want to push a plough or
chase a cow over the same piece of land. Daily disputes over fences, water, and
government grants make friendship tough. The same can be said of the turf wars
that are common between objective and interpretive scholars. Differences in
ways of knowing, views of human nature, values, goals of theory building, and
research methods seem to ensure tension and misunderstanding.
Friendly attitudes between empiricists and interpreters are particularly hard
to come by when each group insists on applying its own standards of judgment
to the work of the other group. As a irst-time reader of communication theory,
you could easily get sucked into making the same mistake. If you’ve had training in the scientiic method and judge the value of every communication theory
by whether it predicts human behavior, you’ll automatically reject 50 percent of
the theories presented in this book. On the other hand, if you’ve been steeped
in the humanities and expect every theory to help unmask the meaning of a text,
you’ll easily dismiss the other half.
Regardless of which approach you favor, not all objective or interpretive
communication theories are equally good. For each type, some are better than
others. Like moviegoers watching one of Clint Eastwood’s early Westerns, you’ll
want a way to separate the good, the bad, and the ugly. Since I’ve included
theories originating in both the social sciences and the humanities, you need to
have two separate lenses through which to view their respective claims. This
chapter offers that pair of bifocals. I hope by the time you inish you’ll be on
friendly terms with the separate criteria that behavioral scientists and a wide
range of interpretive scholars use to weigh the words of their colleagues. We’ll
25
26
OVERVIEW
start with the standards that social scientists use to judge the worth of objective
theories, and then turn to the criteria that interpretive scholars employ to evaluate their communication theories.
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECTIVE THEORY GOOD?
An objective theory is credible because it fulills the twin objectives of scientiic knowledge. The theory explains the past and present, and it predicts the
future. Social scientists of all kinds agree on four additional criteria a theory
must meet to be good—relative simplicity, testability, practical utility, and quantiiable research. As I discuss these standards, I will use the terms objective and
scientiic interchangeably.
Scientific Standard 1: Explanation of the Data
A good objective theory explains an event or human behavior. Philosopher of
science Abraham Kaplan says that theory is a way of making sense out of a
disturbing situation.2 An objective theory should bring clarity to an otherwise
jumbled state of affairs; it should draw order out of chaos.
A good social science theory describes the process, focuses our attention on
what’s crucial, and helps us ignore that which makes little difference. But it also
goes beyond raw data and explains why. When Willie Sutton was asked why he
robbed banks, urban legend says the Depression-era bandit replied, “Because
that’s where the money is.” It’s a great line, but as a theory of motivation, it
lacks explanatory power. There’s nothing in the words that casts light on the
internal processes or environmental forces that led Sutton to crack a safe while
others tried to crack the stock market.
In past editions I included interpersonal deception theory, which offers 18 propositions on the relationship among variables that affect a deceiver’s success.
These include the deceiver’s familiarity, credibility, attractiveness, communication skill, nonverbal leakage, and fear of detection, as well as the receiver’s trust
bias, suspicion, and detection accuracy.3 Many of the connections that interpersonal deception theory describes are well-founded, but the theory is often criticized for not having an explanatory glue that holds it all together:
We cannot ind the “why” …