Communications Question

Consider which ONE of the above best represents a relationship dynamic in your life.

Once you’ve selected ONE of the 4 theories above, you will write an analysis of this relationship with that ONE theory as the lens you will use to view it through. Note, application will look different depending on the theory you choose, i.e.- you’d likely apply interactional theory or systems theory to your family as a whole (3 or more people), but dialectical and social penetration/exchange theory you’d apply to the relationship you have with just one person in your life (i.e., your partner/spouse, sibling, best friend, etc…).

The Task:

You will write an application analysis that applies key concepts, steps, terms, ideas, etc… from the theory as covered in the readings and lecture.

Your analysis should:

Include quotes, terms, ideas from the readings throughout your analysis to show understanding and connection

Provide thoughtful analysis that goes deeper than the obvious doing the following:

A FIRST LOOK AT
COMMUNICATION
THEORY
TENTH EDITION
EM GRIFFIN
ANDREW LEDBETTER
GLENN SPARKS
A FIRST LOOK AT
COMMUNICATION
THEORY
TENTH EDITION
EM GRIFFIN
Wheaton College
ANDREW LEDBETTER
Texas Christian University
GLENN SPARKS
Purdue University
A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION THEORY, TENTH EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2019 by McGraw-Hill
Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions © 2015, 2012, and
2009. 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 McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not
limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the
United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 QVS 21 20 19 18
ISBN 978-1-259-91378-5
MHID 1-259-91378-3
Portfolio Manager: Jamie Laferrera
Product Developer: Alexander Preiss
Marketing Manager: Meredith Leo
Content Project Manager: Maria McGreal
Buyer: Laura Fuller
Design: Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
Content Licensing Specialist: Lori Slattery
Cover Image: ©McGraw-Hill Education
Compositor: Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been requested from the Library of Congress.
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 Education, and McGraw-Hill Education does not
guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.
mheducation.com/highered
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Em Griffin is Professor Emeritus of Communication at Wheaton College in Illinois,
where he taught for more than 35 years and was chosen Teacher of the Year. In 2016,
he was awarded the Wallace A. Bacon Lifetime Teaching Excellence Award from the
National Communication Association. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in communication from Northwestern University; his research interest is in the development
of close friendships. Em is the author of three applied communication books: The
Mind Changers (persuasion), Getting Together (group dynamics), and Making Friends
(close relationships). Throughout his life, Em has served as an active volunteer in
four nonprofit organizations—Young Life (high school youth), Opportunity International (microfinance services for women in poverty), Chicago Center for Conflict
Resolution (mediation), and his church. Em’s wife, Jean, is an artist and a musician.
They’ve been married for more than 50 years and have two adult children, Jim and
Sharon, and six grandchildren—all deeply involved in baseball or hockey. You can
reach Em at em.griffin@wheaton.edu.
Andrew Ledbetter is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in communication studies from the
University of Kansas. His research addresses how people use communication technology to maintain family and other interpersonal relationships. Andrew has published
more than 50 articles and book chapters, and he has received recognition for teaching
excellence from both the National Communication Association and Central States
Communication Association. His wife, Jessica, is a former attorney who is pursuing a
doctorate in higher education administration at Texas Christian University. With their
daughters, Sydney and Kira, they enjoy involvement in their church, playing board
and card games, running, reading, cooking, and following the TCU Horned Frogs
and Kansas Jayhawks. You can reach Andrew at a.ledbetter@tcu.edu, visit his blog at
www.andrewledbetter.com, or follow him on Twitter via @dr_ledbetter.
Glenn Sparks is a professor in the Brian Lamb School of Communication at Purdue
University in Indiana, where he has taught for 32 years and won the highest undergraduate teaching award given by the College of Liberal Arts. He received his Ph.D.
in communication arts from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Glenn is the
author of Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview and a personal memoir, Rolling in
Dough: Lessons I Learned in a Doughnut Shop. He’s co-author of Refrigerator Rights:
Our Crucial Need for Close Connection. Glenn is an avid sports fan and an aspiring
theremin player. He is married to Cheri, who is also a Ph.D. and lecturer in the Brian
Lamb School of Communication at Purdue. They have three adult children, David,
Erin, and Jordan, and four grandchildren, Caleb, Joshua, Autumn, and Benjamin.
You can reach Glenn at gsparks@purdue.edu.
V
DEDICATION
We dedicate this book to our wives, Jeanie, Jessica, and Cheri,
who encouraged us to work together, celebrated with us when
the process went well, and comforted us when it didn’t. Just
as they lovingly supported us in this project, we commit to
being there for them in what they feel called to do.
Em, Andrew, Glenn
CONTENTS
Preface for Instructors
X
DIVISION ONE
OVERVIEW
CHAPTER 1
Launching Your Study
of Communication Theory
2
CHAPTER 2
Talk About Theory
13
CHAPTER 3
Weighing the Words
CHAPTER 4
Mapping the Territory (Seven Traditions in
the Field of Communication Theory)
24
36
DIVISION TWO
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Interpersonal Messages
51
CHAPTER 5
Symbolic Interactionism
of George Herbert Mead
53
CHAPTER 6
Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)
of W. Barnett Pearce & Vernon Cronen
CHAPTER 7
Expectancy Violations Theory
of Judee Burgoon
79
Relationship Development
91
CHAPTER 8
Social Penetration Theory
of Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor
93
CHAPTER 9
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
of Charles Berger
105
CHAPTER 10
Social Information Processing Theory
of Joseph Walther
117
Relationship Maintenance
129
CHAPTER 11
Relational Dialectics Theory
of Leslie Baxter & Mikhail Bakhtin
131
CHAPTER 12
Communication Privacy Management Theory
of Sandra Petronio
145
CHAPTER 13
Media Multiplexity Theory
of Caroline Haythornthwaite
158
65
vii
viii
CONTENTS
Influence
CHAPTER 14
Social Judgment Theory
of Muzafer Sherif
CHAPTER 15
Elaboration Likelihood Model
of Richard Petty & John Cacioppo
CHAPTER 16
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
of Leon Festinger
169
171
DIVISION FOUR
MASS COMMUNICATION
Media and Culture
307
194
CHAPTER 25
Media Ecology
of Marshall McLuhan
309
CHAPTER 26
Semiotics
of Roland Barthes
320
CHAPTER 27
Cultural Studies
of Stuart Hall
332
Media Effects
344
CHAPTER 28
Uses and Gratifications
of Elihu Katz
346
CHAPTER 29
Cultivation Theory
of George Gerbner
356
CHAPTER 30
Agenda-Setting Theory
of Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw
368
208
CHAPTER 17
Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
of Randy Hirokawa & Dennis Gouran
210
CHAPTER 18
Symbolic Convergence Theory
of Ernest Bormann
223
Organizational Communication
235
CHAPTER 19
Cultural Approach to Organizations
of Clifford Geertz & Michael Pacanowsky
297
182
DIVISION THREE
GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
Group Communication
CHAPTER 24
Narrative Paradigm
of Walter Fisher
237
CHAPTER 20
Communicative Constitution of Organizations
of Robert McPhee
248
DIVISION FIVE
CULTURAL CONTEXT
CHAPTER 21
Critical Theory of Communication in
Organizations
of Stanley Deetz
259
Gender and Communication
382
Public Rhetoric
273
CHAPTER 31
Genderlect Styles
of Deborah Tannen
384
CHAPTER 32
Standpoint Theory
of Sandra Harding & Julia Wood
396
CHAPTER 22
The Rhetoric
of Aristotle
CHAPTER 23
Dramatism
of Kenneth Burke
275
287
CONTENTS
ix
CHAPTER 33
Muted Group Theory
of Cheris Kramarae
409
Intercultural Communication
421
CHAPTER 34
Communication Accommodation
Theory
of Howard Giles
CHAPTER 35
Face-Negotiation Theory
of Stella Ting-Toomey
CHAPTER 36
Co-Cultural Theory
of Mark Orbe
423
436
449
DIVISION SIX
INTEGRATION
Integration
463
CHAPTER 37
Common Threads in Comm Theories
465
Appendix A: Abstracts of Theories
A-1
Appendix B: Feature Films That Illustrate
Communication Theories
A-5
Appendix C: NCA Credo for
Ethical Communication
A-7
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 Tenth 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. We’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’ classification. The trend
in the field is to offer students a broad introduction to theory relatively early in their
program. But if a department chooses to offer its first theory course on the junior or
senior level, the course will still be the students’ first comprehensive look at theory,
so the book will meet them where they are.
Our goal in this text is to present 32 communication theories in a clear and
interesting way. After reading about a given theory, students should understand the
theory, know the research that supports it, see useful applications in their lives, and
be aware of the theory’s possible flaws. We hope readers will discover relationships
among theories located across the communication landscape—a clear indication that
they grasp what they’re reading. But that kind of integrative thinking only takes place
when students first comprehend what a theorist claims.
With the help of more than 400 instructors, we’ve selected a range of theories
that reflect 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, meaning, self-concept, or the effect of
society upon the individual. Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory was the first objective theory to be crafted by a social scientist trained in the field. 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, Sandra Petronio’s theory of communication privacy management undergirds
much of the research conducted in the field of health communication. Leslie Baxter’s
theory of relational dialectics offers insight into the ongoing tensions inherent in
x
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
xi
­ ersonal relationships. Robert McPhee’s communicative constitution of organizap
tions describes how the principle of social construction works in an organizational
context. And, like almost all social media theorizing, Caroline Haythornthwaite’s
media multiplexity theory is still being tested and refined.
Organizational Plan of the Book. Each chapter introduces a single theory in
10 to 15 pages. We’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. This way, students can gain an in-depth
understanding of important theories instead of acquiring only a vague familiarity
with a jumble of related ideas. The one-chapter–one-theory arrangement also gives
teachers the opportunity to skip theories or rearrange the order of presentation without tearing apart the fabric of the text.
The first four chapters provide a framework for understanding the theories to
come. The opening chapter, “Launching Your Study of Communication Theory,”
presents working definitions 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 field of communication
theory.
Following this integrative framework, we feature 32 theories in 32 self-contained
chapters. Each theory is discussed within the context of a communication topic:
interpersonal messages, relationship development, relationship maintenance, influence, group communication, organizational communication, public rhetoric, media
and culture, media effects, gender and communication, or intercultural communication. These communication context sections usually cover 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 final 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, we briefly explore a dozen
ethical principles throughout the book. Consistent with the focus of this text, each
principle is the central tenet of a specific 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 questions of character would be to
disregard an ongoing concern in our field.
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. Many chapters offer an extended example to illustrate
the “truth” a theory proposes. We encourage readers to try out ideas by visualizing
a first meeting of freshman roommates, trying to persuade other students to support a zero-tolerance policy on driving after drinking, considering the turbulent
marriage of a prophet and a prostitute, and many others. We also use two speeches
xii
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
of President Barack Obama, and scenes from Mad Men, The Office, The Help, and
Thank You for Smoking to illustrate principles of the theories. The case studies
in chapters follow the pedagogical principle of explaining what students don’t yet
know in terms of ideas and images that are 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 finding in his now classic $1/$20 experiment. And Orbe’s co-cultural
theory emerged when he conducted intensive focus groups with members of the
LGBTQ community, African American men, and people with physical disabilities.
When such exemplars exist, we describe the research in detail so that students can
learn from and appreciate the benefits of grounding theory in systematic observation. In this way, 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, Orbe, Pacanowsky, Pearce, Ting-Toomey,
Walther, Wood, and many others in later communication courses. We therefore
make a concerted effort to link theory and theorist. By pairing a particular theory
with its originator, we 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 suggested that we are “friends” of their
theory. We appreciate that because we want to present all of the theories in a constructive way. But after we summarize a theory’s strengths, we then discuss its weaknesses, unanswered questions, and possible errors that remain. We try to stimulate a
“That makes sense, and yet I wonder . . .” response among students.
We 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 we 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.
We think instructors and students alike will get a good chuckle out of the cartoons we’ve selected for each chapter. The art’s main function, however, is to illustrate
significant points in the text. As in other editions, we’re committed to using quality
cartoon art from The New Yorker and comic strips such as “Calvin and Hobbes” and
“Dilbert.” 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.
A co-authored book always faces the challenge of being consistent in style and
voice across chapters. This has been less of a problem for us because of our history
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
xiii
together. Andrew Ledbetter and Glenn Sparks continue to be co-authors and equal
partners with Em. Both men are highly recognized scholars in their field—Andrew
in online communication and family communication, Glenn in media effects and
interpersonal communication. Glenn was a student in Em’s first persuasion course
at Wheaton; Andrew aced one of the last communication theory classes Em taught
before he retired from full-time teaching. Despite differences in our ages of more
than 40 years, the three of us are close friends and colleagues who have published
together before. Each of us vets and edits what the other two write and offers advice
on what to cover. We’re convinced that this interactive process ensures students will
read up-to-date information presented in the same style that has characterized the
book throughout the previous nine editions.
While no author considers his or her style ponderous or dull, we believe we’ve
presented the theories in a clear and lively fashion. Accuracy alone does not communicate. We’ve tried to remain faithful to the vocabulary each theorist uses so that
the student can consider the theory in the author’s own terms, but we also translate
technical language into more familiar words. Students and reviewers cite readability
and interest as particular strengths of the text. We encourage you to sample a chapter
so you can decide for yourself.
In 13 of the chapters, you’ll see photographs of the theorists who appear in “Conversations with Communication Theorists,” eight-minute video clips of our discussions together. The text that accompanies each picture previews intriguing comments
the theorists made so students can watch the interview with a specific purpose in
mind. These videos are available at www.afirstlook.com, our authors’ website averaging
50,000 log-ins a month. On that site you will also find auto-graded quizzes, chapter
outlines, theory abstracts, web links, an archive of theory chapters no longer in the
text, and a list of feature film scenes illustrating specific theories. In a password-­
protected section of the site, instructors can see suggestions for classroom discussion
and activities, recommendations for further theory resources, chapter-by-chapter
changes from the previous edition, and a chart of theory coverage in other communication theory texts.
Along with many of these resources, an Instructor’s Manual, test bank, and
lecture slides are available through McGraw-Hill Connect. Connect, McGraw-Hill
Education’s integrated assignment and assessment platform, also offers SmartBook
for the new edition, which is the first adaptive reading experience proven to improve
grades and help students study more effectively. Additional information about Connect is available at the end of this preface.
Major Changes in the Tenth Edition. Responding to instructors’ desire to offer
students more than one social media theory, we’re introducing Caroline Haythornthwaite’s media multiplexity theory, which explores the mix of media that people use to connect with each other and the strength of their relational bond. We’ve
also added Mark Orbe’s co-cultural theory, which is based on extensive phenomenological research among the LGBTQ community, people with physical disabilities, and
African American men. The theory plots their patterns of communication with those
in the dominant culture based on their desire to stay separate from, seek accommodation from, or assimilate into that culture. To make room for these theories, we’ve
moved our treatment of Watzlawick’s interactional view and Philipsen’s speech codes
theory to the archive at www.afirstlook.com, where full chapters can be easily accessed
if you desire to assign them to your students.
xiv
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
We’ve made a concerted effort to update and replace examples that no longer
have the explanatory power or appeal they did when introduced in previous editions.
We’ve also worked hard to sharpen the end-of-chapter Critique sections, and in
almost all chapters we base our comments on the six criteria for a good interpretive
or scientific theory outlined in Chapter 3. Half the chapters in the book have undergone major additions, deletions, or alterations. Here’s a sample:
• Our revised critique of social information processing theory cites MIT
professor Sherry Turkle’s challenge to Walther’s basic claim that anything we
do face-to-face can be done just as well or better online. She claims smartphones are drastically reducing our ability for conversation, intimacy, and
empathy.
• Relational dialectics theory has now been fully updated to center on Baxter’s
second version of the theory, which draws heavily on the thinking of Mikhail
Bakhtin. We have replaced the fictional film Bend It Like Beckham with examples drawn from real-life research on family communication.
• Social judgment theory is now illustrated with the issue of gun control rather
than airline safety.
• The narrative paradigm is used as a lens to consider the coherence and fidelity
of a story about the turbulent marriage between a prophet and a prostitute.
• Media ecology now includes a section on the relationship between Marshall
McLuhan’s theory and his strong religious faith. It then answers the question
of why he didn’t speak out against behavioral changes in society that he considered immoral.
• Dramatism has been rearranged to foreground Burke’s thoughts about language,
guilt– redemption, and identification. Building from this background, we then
introduce the dramatistic pentad, applying it to comprehend reactions to an
Obama campaign speech.
• Cultural studies now includes Larry Frey’s appeal for communicative activism
for social justice. This is the only ethical reflection in the book highlighting an
ethicist currently active in the field of communication.
• Agenda-setting theory now includes the recently introduced third level, whereby
the media tell us how issues connect to each other. The chapter also describes
the process of melding agendas into communities.
• Standpoint theory now more clearly differentiates between the concepts of social
location and standpoint. The critique section also mentions intersectionality as
an extension and challenge to feminist thinking.
• Based on updated research, the presentation of face-negotiation theory has been
simplified. Em concludes the chapter with a story about how knowledge of the
theory helped him mediate a bitter conflict at a mosque.
McGraw-Hill Education also offers a robust custom publishing program, Create,
that you may want to consider. Create enables you to build a book with only the
chapters you need, and arrange them in the order you’ll teach them. There’s also the
option of adding materials you prepare or using chapters from other McGraw-Hill
books or resources from their library. When you build a Create book, you will receive
a complimentary print review copy in just a few days or a complimentary eBook via
email in about one hour.
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
xv
Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge the wisdom and counsel of many
generous scholars whose intellectual capital is embedded in every page you’ll read.
Over the last 30 years, more than a thousand 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; Ryan Bisel, University of
Oklahoma; Sarah Bunting, Ayurveda; Judee Burgoon, University of Arizona; Sandy
Callaghan, Texas Christian University; Ken Chase, Wheaton College; Jeff Child,
Kent State University; Stan Deetz, University of Colorado; Sandy French, Radford
University; Darin Garard, Santa Barbara City College; Howard Giles, University of
California, Santa Barbara; Caroline Haythornthwaite, Syracuse University; Arthur
Jensen, Syracuse University; Gang Luo, Ohio University; Bree McEwan, DePaul
University; Marty Medhurst, Baylor University; Julia Moore, University of Utah;
Mark Orbe, Western Michigan University; Doug Osman, Purdue University;
Kim Pearce, CMM Institute for Personal and Social Evolution; Sandra Petronio,
University of Indiana–Purdue University Indianapolis; Russ Proctor, Northern
Kentucky University; Doug Pruim, Purdue University; Art Ramirez, University of
South Florida; Erin Ruppel, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee; Jordan Soliz,
University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Samuel Hardman Taylor, Cornell University; Jessica
Vitak, University of Maryland; Deborah Whitt, Wayne State College; Steve Wilson,
Purdue University; Paul Witt, Texas Christian University; Julia Wood, University of
North Carolina; Robert Woods Jr., Spring Arbor University. Without their help, this
edition would be less accurate and certainly less interesting.
Em has great appreciation for Sharon Porteous, a recent Wheaton graduate who
served as his research assistant and assembled the comprehensive index that contains
thousands of entries—a task no one should do more than once in life.
We are grateful to all the women and men at McGraw-Hill who have been indispensable in making this edition possible: Alex Preiss, Product Developer; Jamie Laferrera, Portfolio Manager; David Patterson, Managing Director; Lori Slattery, Content
Licensing Specialist; and Joyce Berendes, Senior Content Licensing Manager. We are
greatly appreciate the work of Melissa Sacco, Associate Development Program Director and Sudheer Purushothaman, Project Manager at Lumina Datamatics.
We’ve been fortunate to work closely with a group of outside contractors who
have worked in concert for the last four editions. Jenn Meyer, a commercial computer
artist, created and revised figures on 24-hour notice; Judy Brody achieved the impossible by making the extensive and complicated permissions process palatable; Robyn
Tellefsen, freelance writer and editor, was Em’s student research assistant for the
fourth edition of the book, proofreader for three editions, and copy editor for the last
two. She also edited a book Glenn wrote. Robyn is quite familiar with communication
theory and is someone whose edits we trust implicitly. Thus, the book your students
read is better than the one we wrote. Stu Johnson has been the steady webmaster
of www.afirstlook.com since its inception, creating multiple digital paths for users to
find what they want and quickly short-circuiting glitches when they occur. And Amy
Keating, for whom Andrew served as graduate advisor at TCU, graciously volunteers
to respond to the almost daily requests for passwords to enter the instructors-only
section of www.afirstlook.com. It’s a wonderful team and we’re incredibly fortunate to
have their skills and friendship.
We offer a special word of appreciation to Emily Langan, who is a central
member of our team. Emily is Em’s former student who now teaches the courses
he taught at Wheaton. This edition is Emily’s fifth as author of the ever-evolving
Instructor’s Manual that is famous among communication theory instructors.
xvi
PREFACE FOR INSTRUCTORS
Em recalls the time when he first introduced Emily at a National Communication
Association short course on teaching communication theory. The participants
stood and applauded. Now she’s the lead instructor of that course, where she
introduces Em. The three of us are grateful for her wisdom, dedication, creativity,
and friendship.
Em Griffin
Andrew Ledbetter
Glenn Sparks
McGraw-Hill
McGraw-Hill
Connect
Connect
® is ®a is
highly
a highly
reliable,
reliable,
easy-toeasy-touse use
homework
homework
andand
learning
learning
management
management
solution
solution
thatthat
utilizes
utilizes
learning
learning
science
science
andand
award-winning
award-winning
adaptive
adaptive
tools
tools
to improve
to improve
student
student
results.
results.
Homework
Homework
andand
Adaptive
Adaptive
Learning
Learning
▪ Connect’s
▪ Connect’s
assignments
assignments
helphelp
students
students
contextualize
contextualize
whatwhat
they’ve
they’ve
learned
learned
through
through
application,
application,
so they
so they
can better
can better
understand
understand
the the
material
material
and and
thinkthink
critically.
critically.
▪ Connect
▪ Connect
will create
will create
a personalized
a personalized
study
study
pathpath
customized
customized
to individual
to individual
student
student
needs
needs
through
through
SmartBook®.
SmartBook®.
▪ SmartBook
▪ SmartBook
helpshelps
students
students
study
study
moremore
efficiently
efficiently
by delivering
by delivering
an interactive
an interactive
reading
reading
experience
experience
through
through
adaptive
adaptive
highlighting
highlighting
and and
review.
review.
Over
Over
7 billion
7 billion
questions
questions
have
have
been
been
answered,
answered,
making
making
McGraw-Hill
McGraw-Hill
Education
Education
products
products
more
more
intelligent,
intelligent,
reliable,
reliable,
andand
precise.
precise.
UsingUsing
Connect
Connect
improves
improves
retention
retention
ratesrates
by 19.8%,
by 19.8%,
passing
passing
ratesrates
by by
12.7%,
12.7%,
and exam
and exam
scores
scores
by 9.1%.
by 9.1%.
Quality
Quality
Content
Content
andand
Learning
Learning
Resources
Resources
▪ Connect
▪ Connect
content
content
is authored
is authored
by the
by world’s
the world’s
bestbest
subject
subject
matter
matter
experts,
experts,
and and
is available
is available
to your
to your
classclass
through
through
a a
simple
simple
and and
intuitive
intuitive
interface.
interface.
▪ The
▪ The
Connect
Connect
eBook
eBook
makes
makes
it easy
it easy
for students
for students
to to
access
access
theirtheir
reading
reading
material
material
on smartphones
on smartphones
and and
tablets.
tablets.
TheyThey
can study
can study
on the
on go
theand
go and
don’tdon’t
needneed
internet
internet
access
access
to use
to the
use eBook
the eBook
as a as a
reference,
reference,
withwith
full functionality.
full functionality.
▪ Multimedia
▪ Multimedia
content
content
suchsuch
as videos,
as videos,
simulations,
simulations,
and and
games
games
drivedrive
student
student
engagement
engagement
and and
critical
critical
thinking
thinking
skills.
skills.
73%73%
of instructors
of instructors
whowho
useuse
Connect
Connect
require
require
it; it;
instructor
instructor
satisfaction
satisfaction
increases
increases
by 28%
by 28%
when
when
Connect
Connect
is required.
is required.
©McGraw-Hill
©McGraw-Hill
Education
Education
Robust
Robust
Analytics
Analytics
andand
Reporting
Reporting
▪ Connect
▪ Connect
Insight®
Insight®
generates
generates
easy-to-read
easy-to-read
reports
reports
on individual
on individual
students,
students,
the class
the class
as a as a
whole,
whole,
and and
on specific
on specific
assignments.
assignments.
▪ The
▪ The
Connect
Connect
Insight
Insight
dashboard
dashboard
delivers
delivers
datadata
on performance,
on performance,
study
study
behavior,
behavior,
and and
effort.
effort.
Instructors
Instructors
can quickly
can quickly
identify
identify
students
students
whowho
struggle
struggle
and and
focus
focus
on material
on material
thatthat
the class
the class
has yet
has to
yetmaster.
to master.
▪ Connect
▪ Connect
automatically
automatically
grades
grades
assignments
assignments
and and
quizzes,
quizzes,
providing
providing
easy-to-read
easy-to-read
reports
reports
on individual
on individual
and and
classclass
performance.
performance.
©Hero Images/Getty
©Hero Images/Getty
Images Images
More
More
students
students
earn
earn
As As
andand
Bs Bs
when
when
theythey
useuse
Connect.
Connect.
Trusted
Trusted
Service
Service
andand
Support
Support
▪ Connect
▪ Connect
integrates
integrates
withwith
youryour
LMSLMS
to provide
to provide
single
single
sign-on
sign-on
and and
automatic
automatic
syncing
syncing
of grades.
of grades.
Integration
Integration
withwith
Blackboard®,
Blackboard®,
D2L®,
D2L®,
and and
Canvas
Canvas
also also
provides
provides
automatic
automatic
syncing
syncing
of the
of course
the course
calendar
calendar
and and
assignment-level
assignment-level
linking.
linking.
▪ Connect
▪ Connect
offers
offers
comprehensive
comprehensive
service,
service,
support,
support,
and and
training
training
throughout
throughout
every
every
phase
phase
of your
of your
implementation.
implementation.
▪ If▪ you’re
If you’re
looking
looking
for some
for some
guidance
guidance
on how
on how
to use
to Connect,
use Connect,
or want
or want
to learn
to learn
tips tips
and and
tricks
tricks
fromfrom
super
super
users,
users,
you you
can find
can find
tutorials
tutorials
as you
as you
work.
work.
Our Our
Digital
Digital
Faculty
Faculty
Consultants
Consultants
and and
Student
Student
Ambassadors
Ambassadors
offeroffer
insight
insight
into into
howhow
to achieve
to achieve
the results
the results
you you
wantwant
withwith
Connect.
Connect.
www.mheducation.com/connect
www.mheducation.com/connect
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)
CHAPTER
1
Launching Your Study
of Communication Theory
This is a book about theories—communication theories. After that statement you
may already be stifling a yawn. Many college students, after all, regard theory as
obscure, dull, and irrelevant. People outside the classroom are even less c­ haritable.
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. As authors of this book, we appreciate his
desire to make sense of his world. Here’s a man who spends a 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 Em heard from University of
Arizona communication theorist Judee Burgoon when he talked with her in our
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 previous editions we used theory as “an umbrella term for all careful, ­systematic,
and self-conscious discussion and analysis of communication p
­ henomena,” a definition offered by the late University of Minnesota communication professor Ernest
Bormann.2 We like this definition 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
figure out when thoughts or statements about communication haven’t attained that
status. If we call any idea a “theory,” does saying it’s so make it so?
In Em’s 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 one of the most frequently cited scholars in the communication ­discipline,
he was intrigued by her unexpected use of the nontechnical term hunch. Would it
2
CHAPTER 1: Launching Your Study of Communication Theory
3
“It’s just a theory, but perhaps it’s their opposable thumbs that makes them crazy.”
©Charles Barsotti/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
therefore be legitimate to entitle the book you’re reading Communication Hunches?
She assured Em 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, we’ll examine the three key
features of Burgoon’s notion of a theory. First, we’ll focus on the idea that theory
consists of a set of hunches. But a set of hunches is only a starting point. Second,
we’ll discuss what it means to say that those hunches have to be informed. Last,
we’ll highlight the notion that the hunches have to be systematic. Let’s look briefly
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 you’ve launched. When you first float your theory,
however, it’s definitely 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
dog in the cartoon above may be quite sure that all humans are crazy. But, despite
what the pup says, that isolated conviction isn’t really a theory. To become one, it
would have to go further. For example, good theories define their key terms, so we
might ask how the dog defines “crazy.” Perhaps the hound would say he thinks his
owner is crazy because she shows no interest in eating puppy chow and insists that
4 OVERVIEW
her dogs stay off the furniture. That definition may be debatable, but at least it begins
to flesh out the dog’s initial hunch. A theory will also give some indication of scope.
Are some humans crazier than others? Apes and giant pandas have opposable
thumbs too. Are they just as crazy? Theory construction involves multiple hunches.
Informed Hunches
For Burgoon, it’s not enough to think carefully about an idea; a theorist’s hunches
should be informed. Working on a hunch that opposable thumbs make people crazy,
the canine theorist could go 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, theorists should be familiar
with alternative explanations and interpretations of the types of phenomena they
are studying. (Little doggie, could it be that animals who bark at passing cars are
actually the crazy ones?)
Pepperdine University emeritus communication professor Fred Casmir’s description of theory parallels Burgoon’s call for multiple informed hunches:
Theories are sometimes defined as guesses—but significantly 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 specifies the relationships among them.
In common parlance, it connects the dots. The links among the informed hunches
are clearly drawn so that a pattern emerges.
The dog’s hunch definitely doesn’t rise to this standard. It’s a one-shot claim
that isn’t part of a conceptual framework. Yes, he suggests there’s some connection
between opposable thumbs and craziness, but the connecting word that in the
cartoon doesn’t really show the relationship between humans’ insane behavior and
their anatomy. To do that, the puppy theorist could speculate about the nature of
opposable thumbs. They lead humans to eat with their hands rather than with
their mouths buried in a dish, and to shake hands when they greet instead of
smelling each other. (Everyone knows that smelling is believing.) Humans also use
their hands to grasp tools and build machines that sever their connection to the
natural world. No other creature on earth does that. If the hound can explain how
opposable thumbs lead humans to an artificial view of reality, he’s on his way to
integrating his thoughts into a coherent 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? we’ve presented a verbal definition.
Many students are visual learners as well and would appreciate a concrete image
that helps us understand what a theory is and does. So we’ll present three ­metaphors
CHAPTER 1: Launching Your Study of Communication Theory
5
that we find helpful, but will also note how an overreliance on these ­representations
of theory might lead us astray.
Theories as Nets: Philosopher of science Karl Popper said that “theories are nets
cast to catch what we call ‘the world’. . . . We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer
and finer.”5 This metaphor 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. But
either way, the quest for finer-meshed nets is somewhat disturbing because the study
of communication is about people rather than schools of fish. The idea that theories
could be woven so tightly that they’d snag everything humans think, say, or do seems
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 reflects 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 the speech
act as a b­ reakdown of communication or the breakup of a relationship, while the
other theorist will see it as democracy in action. A 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: A good map helps us understand unfamiliar terrain. It’s
designed with a purpose. Road maps explain how to get from point A to point B.
Political maps show boundaries between states and nations. Climate maps reveal
whether a place is hot or cold. Within this analogy, a communication theory is a
kind of map that’s designed to help you navigate some part of the topography of
human relationships. In a sense, this book of theories is like a scenic atlas that pulls
together 32 must-see locations. However, we must remember that the map is not
the territory.6 Like a still photograph, no theory can fully portray the richness of
interaction between people that is constantly changing, always 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?
So far we’ve discussed theory, but what about communication? What is it, exactly?
To ask this question is to invite controversy and raise expectations for clarity
that can’t be met. When it comes to defining what it is we study, there’s little
discipline in the discipline. Frank Dance, the University of Denver scholar credited with publishing the first comprehensive book on communication theory,
cataloged more than 120 definitions of communication—and that was 50 years
ago.7 Communication scholars have suggested many more since then, yet no
6 OVERVIEW
single definition has risen to the top and become the standard within the field
of communication.
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
definitive lines around what 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 definition 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 define communication in an all-inclusive way, it
seems to us 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 final 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, we offer this
working definition:
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 five features of communication that you’ll run across repeatedly
as you read about the theories in the field. We’ll flesh out these concepts in the
rest of this section.
1. Messages
Text
A record of a message
that can be analyzed by
others (e.g., a book, film,
photograph, or any
transcript or recording of
a speech or broadcast).
Messages are at the core of communication study. University of Colorado emeritus
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
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, while other disciplines are just passing through on their way
to other destinations. All the theories covered in this book deal specifically 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 Justin Bieber song. To illustrate the following four parts of the definition, suppose you received this cryptic text message
from a close 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
CHAPTER 1: Launching Your Study of Communication Theory
7
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 definition of communication 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 at least one
of the theories in this book, and they all imply that the ­communicator is 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 field
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 p­ roblem, 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
several theories in this book—each one seeks to increase our communication choices.
3. Interpretation of Messages
Polysemic
A quality of symbols that
means they’re open to
multiple interpretations.
Messages do not interpret themselves. The meaning that a message holds for the
creators and receivers doesn’t reside in the words that are spoken, written, or acted
out. Many communication scholars believe that words don’t mean things, people mean
things. Symbolic interactionist Herbert Blumer stated the ­implication of this claim:
“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, how would your friend characterize their
sexual liaison? Recreational sex? A chance hookup? Friends with benefits? Developing
a close relationship? Falling in love? The start of a long-term c­ ommitment? 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 morningafter-the-night-before blahs? Gratefulness? Guilt? Ecstasy? And finally, 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 Heraclitus observed that “one cannot step into the same
river twice.”12 These words illustrate the widespread acceptance among communication
8 OVERVIEW
scholars that communication is a process. Much like a river, the flow of communication is always in flux, 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 clarifying q­ uestions. 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,” U
­ niversity
of Georgia rhetorical theorist Celeste Condit suggests that the c­ ommunication 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 identified 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 influence 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-screen. And as businesses are
discovering, even the impersonal recorded announcement that “this call may be
monitored for quality assurance purposes” has an impact on how we regard their
corporate persona.
5. Messages That Elicit a Response
This final component of communication deals with the effect of the message on
people who receive it. At the end of his groundbreaking book on ­communication
theory, Dance concludes, “ ‘Communication,’ in its broadest interpretation, may be
defined as the eliciting of a response.”14 If a message fails to stimulate 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.”
Picture a mother driving her 10-year-old son home from school. He’s strapped
in the seat behind her playing Subway Surfers on his tablet, equipped with earbuds.
His mother asks if he has any homework. Is that communication? Not if he doesn’t
hear the question or see her lips moving. What if he isn’t wired for sound and hears
her voice? It depends. If he’s glued to the screen and totally engrossed in avoiding
subway cars, he may literally tune her out—still no communication.
Suppose, however, the boy hears her words and feels bad that he has homework,
sad that his mom’s so nosy, mad that she broke his game-playing concentration, or
glad that he finished the assignment during class. Although these are internal feelings that his mother may miss, each response would have been triggered by Mom’s
question and would therefore qualify as communication—even if he doesn’t reply.
And of course, any vocal response, even a noncommittal grunt, indicates that some
form of communication has occurred.
In like manner, surely you would respond to your friend’s cryptic ­message about
the night spent with Pat—even if you give your friend “the silent treatment.” In fact,
the text seems to have been crafted and sent to provoke a response. How closely
CHAPTER 1: Launching Your Study of Communication Theory
9
your thoughts, feelings, words, or actions would match what your friend expected
or intended is another matter. Successful or not, the whole situation ­surrounding
the text and context of the message fits the working definition of communication
that we 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 we’ve structured the book and arranged the theories can help you
grasp their content. After this chapter, there are three more chapters in the “Overview” division that will help you compare and contrast theories—think of these
chapters as a bird’s-eye view of the communication theory terrain. In Chapter 2,
co-author Glenn Sparks and another leading communication scholar 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 theories 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 affinity 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. We think you’ll find 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 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,” delves into systems of shared meaning that are
so all-encompassing 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 specific
situations. It therefore makes sense to group them according to the different communication settings that usually prompt those questions. This organizational plan
is like having four separately indexed file 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 c­ ommon
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, in each of the four context divisions, there’s at least one
theory 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.
10 OVERVIEW
CHAPTER FEATURES TO ENLIVEN THEORY
In many of the chapters ahead, we use an extended example from life on a c­ ollege
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 a­ pplication will make it doubly interesting and memorable for you.
You might also want to see how others put the theories into practice. With our
students’ permission, we’ve weaved in their accounts of application for almost all
the theories featured in the text. We’re intrigued by the rich connections these
students make—ones we wouldn’t have thought of on our own. Some ­students draw
on scenes from short stories, novels, or movies. To see an annotated list of feature
film scenes that illustrate the theories, go to the book’s website, www.afirstlook.
com, and under Theory Resources, click on Suggested Movie Clips.
As co-authors of this book, the three of us (Em, Andrew, and Glenn) will draw
upon our life experiences as well. We’ve been professional colleagues for years and
are close friends, so we’d like that warmth to extend to readers by writing in a
direct, personal voice. In the first four chapters, we’ve written using words like we
and our. We want you to know the basic commitments we share collectively as
communication scholars. For each of the remaining chapters on specific theories,
one of us took the lead in preparing the content. These chapters use I, my, and me
when referring to individual thoughts or stories from our lives. Since Em was the
original and sole author of the book for many years, many examples come from his
life. So unless you see a reference in a chapter that Andrew or Glenn is sharing his
own ideas, feelings, or experiences, you can assume that the “I” refers to Em. We
don’t use personal references in every chapter, but when we do, we want you to
know whose voice you’re “hearing.”
We also make a consistent effort to link each theory with its creator(s). It takes
both wisdom and courage to successfully plant a theoretical flag. 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 we always include a section in theory c­ hapters 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 “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 our Conversations with Communication Theorists and shown
alongside a brief description of what we talked about. You can view these 6- to
8-minute interviews at www.afirstlook.com. And the feature entitled “A Second
Look” offers an annotated bibliography of resources should you desire to know
CHAPTER 1: Launching Your Study of Communication Theory
11
more about the theory. You’ll find 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 we’ll mention. In every chapter we include
a cartoon for your learning and enjoyment. C
­ artoonists 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 our comments on the dog theorizing about opposable thumbs earlier in this
chapter, we usually don’t refer to the art or the caption that goes with it. So if you
can’t figure 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. We sympathize with their qualms and m
­ isgivings, but find that
the theories in this book haven’t dehydrated life or made it more confusing. On the
contrary, they add clarity and provide a sense of competence as we communicate
with others. We hope they do that for you as well.
Every so often a student will ask one of us, “Do you really think about communication theory when you’re talking to someone?” Our answer is “Yes, but not
all the time.” Like everyone else, we often speak on autopilot—words, phrases,
­sentences, descriptions roll off the tongue without conscious thought. Old habits
die hard. But when we’re in a new setting or the conversational stakes are high, we
start to think strategically. And that’s when the applied wisdom of ­theories that fit
the situation comes to mind. By midterm, many of our students discover they’re
thinking that way as well. That’s our 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 wings or engine. What would
it take to transform your hunch into a theory?
2. Which metaphor of theory do you find 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 be addressing communication as we’ve defined it (the relational process of creating and interpreting messages to elicit a response)? If not,
how would you change the definition 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, or
problems you want to fix?
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 definitions of communication: Frank E. X. Dance, “The Concept of Communication,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, 1970, pp. 201–210.
12 OVERVIEW
Brief history of communication theory since the early 1990s: Barbie Zelizer, “Making
Communication Theory Matter,” Communication Theory, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015, pp. 410–415.
Theories of communication as practical: Joann Keyton, Ryan S. Bisel, and Raymond
Ozley, “Recasting the Link Between Applied and Theory Research: Using Applied Findings to Advance Communication Theory Development,” Communication Theory, Vol. 19,
No. 2, 2009, pp. 146–160.
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.
To access 50-word summaries of theories
featured in the book, see Appendix A or click on
Theory Overview under Theory Resources at
www.afirstlook.com.
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 during my first 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. Marty is on the faculty at Baylor
University; Glenn is at Purdue University and is a co-author of this book.
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 first 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 first aired during Super Bowl XLVII, the game
where the lights went out. It’s a stealth ad for beer that doesn’t show booze on a
beach, men in a bar flirting with a waitress serving brew, or a guy tapping a keg
yelling, “Party all night!” These are typical images that turn off a significant portion
of viewers who see them as silly, distasteful, or unethical. That’s because those ads
appear to promote the dangerous practice of binge drinking among young adults as
a way to gain acceptance or get a buzz. Instead, this ad portrays the bond that
develops between a shaggy-hooved Clydesdale horse and his young trainer.1
TWO COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS VIEW A HEARTWARMING AD
Using no dialogue or voice-over, the Super Bowl commercial tells a visual story in
60 seconds. We see scenes of the newborn foal, his trainer asleep in the sick colt’s
stall, horseplay between them as the animal gains stature, and the fully grown horse
running free alongside the trainer’s truck. When it’s time for this magnificent animal
to become part of a working team of Clydesdales promoting beer, the trainer
leads him into the company’s horse van and gazes wistfully as it disappears down
the road.
Three years later, the man discovers the Clydesdales will be in a Chicago parade
and drives to the city to reconnect with his horse. He smiles with pride as the horse
prances by, but blinders keep the animal from seeing him. As the trainer walks sadly
13
14
OVERVIEW
back to his truck, the harness is removed and the horse catches a glimpse of him.
The final shots show the Clydesdale galloping down the street to catch up with his
human friend, who then buries his face in the horse’s mane as they are reunited.
Since the sponsor spent $7 million to air this one-minute commercial—and more
than that to film it—its marketing department obviously believed that featuring this
huge draft horse would sell huge amounts of draft beer. There’s no doubt that most
critics and viewers liked the ad. Former Advertising Age analyst Ken Wheaton concluded, “Weepy, sentimental, nostalgic. I don’t care. This is everything I want from
a Budweiser Super Bowl spot.”2 Yet as you’ll see, social s­ cientist Glenn and rhetorical critic Marty take different theoretical approaches as they analyze the intent of
the ad and how it 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.
After the 2013 Super Bowl ended, a research company announced that the
­Clydesdale ad was the year’s commercial winner.3 The researchers tracked 400 viewers who used a mobile app to express their feelings during the broadcast. The extent
of viewers’ enthusiasm for the Clydesdale ad was on par with what they felt when
their favorite team scored a touchdown. Social scientists wonder why the commercial produced such positive sentiment and whether it resulted in action. They want
to explain and predict human behavior.
How do scientists satisfy these interests? After observing behavior, we identify
or construct a theory that offers insight into what we’ve observed. In this case,
advertising guru Tony Schwartz’ resonance principle of communication is a promising
theoretical idea.4 Although Schwartz passed away in 2008, his theory lives on.
According to Schwartz, successful persuasive messages evoke past experiences
that create resonance between the message content and a person’s thoughts or feelings. Schwartz believed that resonance leads to persuasion. It’s not arguments that
persuade people as much as it is memories of personal experiences triggered by the
message.
The heartwarming story of a worker dedicated to a horse he loves may tap
into viewers’ deep memories of their own devotion to animals they once nurtured. The emotional scene at the end of the ad might stir reminiscence of your
pet’s excitement when you would return home or the tremendous relief at being
reunited with one you thought lost. Once these good feelings are evoked, Schwartz
believed people associate them with the advertised product. For beer drinkers,
those good feelings may lead to more sales. For viewers who see drinking beer
as a health risk, the good feelings may lead to positive thoughts about a company
that seems to care not only about selling beer, but also about taking good care
of those splendid Clydesdales. In this case, persuasion may be measured both in
beer sales and positive thoughts about Budweiser—a company well aware that its
success may lead to alcohol abuse among consumers and a bad corporate
­reputation.
Theories need to be validated. For scientists, it’s not enough to identify a theory
that seems to apply to the situation. We want an objective test to find out if a theory
is faulty. For example, I’d want to discover if commercials that trigger warm emotional memories are better than other ads at selling products or g­enerating good
feelings toward the sponsor. Testing audience response is a crucial scientific 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.
CHAPTER 2: Talk About Theory
15
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.
There is more going on here than a simple reunion of man and horse. The entire
ad is structured by an archetypal mythic pattern of birth-death-rebirth. Archetypal
myths are those that draw upon a universal experience—what psychoanalyst Carl
Jung called the “collective unconscious.”5 Deep within the mental makeup of all
human beings is the archetype of the birth-death-rebirth cycle. The use of such
archetypes, according to rhetorical theorist Michael Osborn, touches off “depth
responses” that emotionally resonate at the core of our being.6 The ad activates
these emotions by incorporating the form of the cycle within a mini-narrative.
We first see the newborn colt in the barn as the breeder feeds him, strokes his
coat, and even sleeps next to him in the stall. Birth naturally leads to growth, as
we watch the colt mature before our eyes. But just as this Clydesdale grows to full
stature, the Budweiser 18-wheeler arrives to take away the treasured horse. Symbolically, this is a death because it represents an absence or void. What once was is
no more. Then, three years later, the breeder and his horse are reunited in an act
of rebirth. The former relationship, which had been shattered by the symbolic death,
is now restored with the reunion of man and horse.
It is significant that the passage of time is three years. Just as Christians believe
Jesus lay in the tomb for three days before his resurrection, so the horse is gone
for three years before he reappears. But once he re-emerges, it is as though he never
left. That which was lost has been found. The emotions evoked by this ad are strong
because we are dealing with life and death, with loss and restoration. All of us
unconsciously long for a reunion with those people or things in our lives that have
been most important to us. Even the music—“Landslide” by Fleetwood Mac—­
underscores the archetypal pattern, as it speaks of love, loss, change, and being
afraid. Fear of death is a primordial human instinct. It is only through a rebirth
that we can reclaim what time and change have taken from us.
The ad subtly suggests that Budweiser beer is our constant mainstay. Life
changes and losses happen, but Bud never changes, never disappears. We see that
in the shots of the beer bottle on the breeder’s table as he reads about the upcoming
parade in Chicago. Bud is portrayed as our companion and our c­ omforter, something that will be with us through the dark nights of separation and loss.
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 warm feelings viewers have when
seeing the Budweiser Clydesdale ad, 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 we refer to theorists and
researchers like Glenn throughout the book, we’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 specific 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: social constructionists, critical theorists, hermeneuticists, poststructuralists, deconstructivists, phenomenologists, cultural studies researchers,
16
OVERVIEW
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.7
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 we’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 singling out a particular subgroup.
The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists reflect contrasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of human nature,
questions of value, and the purpose of 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 q­ uestion
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 five 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 findings and build a collective body of knowledge
about how the world works.
Scientists consider good theories to be those that are faithful representations
of the way the world really is. Of the metaphors introduced in Chapter 1, they like
the image of theory as a mirror that reflects reality, or a net that captures part of
it. Objective theorists are confident 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 theory of resonance 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 flux rather than revealing or representing fixed 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
CHAPTER 2: Talk About Theory
17
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 Budweiser ad draws upon a deep-seated pattern of birthdeath-rebirth ingrained in all of us? As Anderson notes, “Truth is a s­truggle, not
a status.”8
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.9 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”10).
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 . . . ,” whereas people who feel they pull their
own strings say, “I decided to. . . .” The first 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 reflects 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. Schwartz’ theory of resonance
posits that messages triggering emotional memories from our past will inevitably
affect us. We will be swayed by an ad that strikes a responsive chord.
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 word selection 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, “It
is only through a rebirth that we can reclaim what time and change have taken from
us.” If someone reclaims what was lost, it is an act of volition. The trainer decided
to go to Chicago. Others who felt loss might not. The c­ onsistent interpreter doesn’t
ask why this man made that choice. As Anderson explains, “True choice demands
to be its own cause and its own explanation.”11
Human choice is 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
18
OVERVIEW
DILBERT © 1993 Scott Adams. Used By permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.
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 find traitors in our midst. We
castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.12
Lewis assumes that significant decisions are value laden; interpretive scholars would
agree.
THE HIGHEST VALUE: OBJECTIVITY OR EMANCIPATION?
When we talk about values, we’re discussing priorities, questions of relative worth.13
Values are the traffic lights of our lives that guide what we think, feel, and do. The
professional values of communication theorists reflect 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 influence 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
CHAPTER 2: Talk About Theory
Empirical evidence
Data collected through
direct observation.
Emancipation
Liberation from any form
of political, economic,
racial, religious, or sexual
oppression;
­empowerment.
19
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 findings 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.”14
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. He doesn’t take an overtly
critical stance toward advertising or the capitalist system. But his insight of Bud
framed as a constant companion and comforter gives us the resource to laugh at
the irony of hugging a bottle of beer whenever we feel lonely or a sense of loss.
Critical interpreters value socially relevant research that seeks to liberate
­people from oppression of any sort—economic, political, religious, emotional, or
any other. 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 Human 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.”15
In the heading for this section, we’ve contrasted the primary values of scientific
and interpretive scholars by using the labels objectivity and emancipation. University
of Colorado emeritus communication professor Stan Deetz frames the issue somewhat differently. He says that every general communication theory has two ­priorities—
effectiveness and participation.16 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.
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 specific 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 fits 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 stories are more
persuasive than arguments. He then crafts a tightly worded hypothesis that ­temporarily
20
OVERVIEW
commits him to a specific 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
confidently predict which media ads will be effective, explain why, and make recommendations on how practitioners can craft messages that stir up m
­ emories.
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 Michael Osborn 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 benefit 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 significant.17
OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
Metatheory
Theory about theory; the
stated or inherent
assumptions made when
creating a theory.
Why is it important to grasp the differences between objective and interpretive scholarship? The first 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’re clueless, 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.
There’s another reason to master these metatheoretical differences. After exposure to a dozen or more theories, you may find that they begin to blur together in
your mind. Classifying them as scientific 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 this course you could have up to 32 cards in your deck of communication theories. Being able to sort them in multiple combinations 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 these objective/interpretive choice points can also help you
decide the direction you want to take in your remaining course work. Some concentrations in the field of communication tend to have either a scientific or an
interpretive bias. For example, all the theories we present in the relationship development, influence, and media effects sections of the book are proposed by objective
scholars. Conversely, most of the theories we 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 specific route you’ll take.
21
CHAPTER 2: Talk About Theory
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.
If you think you have a good grasp of how objective and interpretive theories
differ, continue on to Chapters 3 and 4. But if you’d like to see an example of what
each type of theory looks like, you might flip ahead to Expectancy Violations Theory
(Chapter 7) and Relational Dialectics Theory (Chapter 11). Both are interpersonal
theories—the former highly objective and the latter highly interpretive. As you read
each chapter, try to spot the differences between their approaches to ways of knowing, human nature, values, and the purpose of theory.
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. Once you
understand 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 2–1 displays our evaluation of where each theory we feature fits on an
objective–interpretive continuum. For easier reference to positions on the scale, we’ve
numbered the five columns at the bottom of the chart. In placing a theory, we’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. We’ve consulted a number of
scholars in the field to get their “read” on appropriate placements. They didn’t
always agree, but in most cases the discussion has sharpened our understanding of
theory and the issues to be considered in the process of creating one. What we
learned is reflected in the chapters ahead.
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 the theories have an objective orientation, while the other half
reflect an interpretive commitment. This 50–50 split matches the mix of scholarship
we see in the field. 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 re…