(Based on Wood's explanation)
Symbolic Interactionism is an assumption of George Herbert Mead. According to Mead, humans use symbols as the foundation of both personal and social life.
It deals with the three core principles: meaning, language and thought.
It’s the meaning we give to things we have seen around us and how we act and observed towards it. The language gives humans a means by which to negotiate meaning through symbols, and for us to be able to understand one another. Engaging in speech acts may also affect like the naming and classifying of some things for further disclosure. The thought modifies each individual’s modification of symbols. It’s the sharing of points of view from what you’ve said through the use of language.
He also included some key concepts in Symbolic Interactionism:
This explanation came only from Wood which according to him, the mind has the ability to use symbols that have common social meaning. Some of the used symbols nowadays we portray to the things we’ve seen are products of our creative minds. When we interact with other people our self-development may progress.
-the “looking glass self” to know more about our selves from other people’s observations or descriptions to us.
-the “self-fulfilling prophecy” we live our lives by the shadows of others. Whatever things they had imposed on us we just go with the flow.
The “I” is the acting subject, impulsive, creative, spontaneous, and generally unburdened by social rules and restrictions. “Me” is the socially conscious part of the self who reflects on the I’s impulses and actions. It’s analytical, evaluative, and aware of social conventions, rules, and expectations. Lastly, our role taking reflects on the particular others (individuals significant to us) and to the generalized others (viewpoint of a social group).
As what I’ve mentioned earlier, people act on the basis of what things mean to them. Meanings are formed in the process of interacting symbolically with others in the society.
Symbols are the foundations of meanings. Individuals’ meanings aren’t strictly personal, but always carry social overtones. The individuals’ meanings reflect the internalized perspectives of particular others and generalized others.
However, Mead’s theory has conceptual inconsistencies. Like, he doesn’t formally write it. There are still concepts that seemed generalize and vague, some are abstract and hard to grasp. Nevertheless, we had been given the chance to understand its basics-- and that from the meanings we created there’s interaction, thus, probably can make a change around us!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Social Penetration Theory: a Summary
When we meet someone, and then we are very eager to make friends with that person, we need first to undergo some processes to know him or her deeply.
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed an assumption and named it the Social Penetration Process. It states that as relationship develop, person’s communication topics become deep, and as penetration goes on it could possibly reach its inner core and know a public person’s identity well.
“It is also considered to be a cyclical and dialectical--relationships have normal ebbs and flows”.
In order to understand their theory, they compared people to onions-a multilayered nature of personality. (Griffin) The outer layer (your outside appearance), the way people judge you based on your actions. The inner core serves as your sensitive part (where the inner beliefs, faith, values as an individual took place).
We have personal things to keep within our own selves and served as secrets, and in some instances it can hinder in creating a social relationship with others. But if we allow self-disclosure or open up to others, that would be the chance for a new friendship to grow.
According to Griffin, “the depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy”. When we dig and exert effort to know him/her better, we have to understand these four observations outlined by Taylor and Altman first.
1.Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information- the percentage of talk a person give may affect. But if there’s further penetration, and the sharing of true feelings may occur--it’s just a matter of when and how.
2.Self-disclosure is reciprocal especially in the early stages of relationship development- a give-and-take exchange in which both of you is sharing personal feelings towards each other in order to understand both companies.
3.Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are matched- telling more about you in just a short while may affect the situation. There’s a tendency that the other person may lose interest on you. We need to have that “sharing of positive and negative reactions” for a better outcome in a slower tempo yet we have to be sure on it.
4.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal- when there’s no enjoyment and satisfaction with each other anymore, a possibility in terminating the relationship may occur.
The two theorists also talked about the possible outcome which regards to the penetration process. It has something to deal with the rewards minus costs issue. For personal gain--the larger the reward the more self-disclosure may happen.
Next, is the comparison level (CL)-Gauging Relational Satisfaction. We tend to evaluate our actions in mingling with others. The sharing of most common experiences may affect; thus making as happy or sad and simply satisfied.
The last one is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)-Gauging Relational Stability. This time some advocates label social exchange as a “theory of economic behavior”. (Griffin) It is somehow complicated, but the two theorists put it this way; and that it has nothing to do with the self-satisfaction issue anymore. It’s more on the stability of the relationship, how it will last despite the certain dilemmas that may occur. And on how we can stand longer a person’s attitude whether it’s good or bad. “Mutual vulnerability will begin and reciprocal self-disclosure will draw them close”.
But Sandra Petronio (a communication theorist at the University of Indiana) questioned the work of Altman and Taylor. First, there are private information’s from each individual that he/she may not likely to share, and from that we should respect them. He or she merely speaks up and the other person may de disappointed and turned off making the social penetration end.
Another is the comparison of a person’s personal information’s to a fixed layering of an onion. She believes that a person’s private concerns may gradually change and seem to have a series of twists and turns.
The reward-cost issue also puzzled other scholars. Certainly, we don’t have to depend on the best interest we gain from being friends and socializing others, that could be a self-centered intention or action.
Altman and Taylor’s theory seems to pertain to real world experiences. They had just explained how people establish relationships and have just stated several factors which affect relationship of people to others--as to being open to one another. However, there are still gaps and lapses on the proposed assumption.
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed an assumption and named it the Social Penetration Process. It states that as relationship develop, person’s communication topics become deep, and as penetration goes on it could possibly reach its inner core and know a public person’s identity well.
“It is also considered to be a cyclical and dialectical--relationships have normal ebbs and flows”.
In order to understand their theory, they compared people to onions-a multilayered nature of personality. (Griffin) The outer layer (your outside appearance), the way people judge you based on your actions. The inner core serves as your sensitive part (where the inner beliefs, faith, values as an individual took place).
We have personal things to keep within our own selves and served as secrets, and in some instances it can hinder in creating a social relationship with others. But if we allow self-disclosure or open up to others, that would be the chance for a new friendship to grow.
According to Griffin, “the depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy”. When we dig and exert effort to know him/her better, we have to understand these four observations outlined by Taylor and Altman first.
1.Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information- the percentage of talk a person give may affect. But if there’s further penetration, and the sharing of true feelings may occur--it’s just a matter of when and how.
2.Self-disclosure is reciprocal especially in the early stages of relationship development- a give-and-take exchange in which both of you is sharing personal feelings towards each other in order to understand both companies.
3.Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are matched- telling more about you in just a short while may affect the situation. There’s a tendency that the other person may lose interest on you. We need to have that “sharing of positive and negative reactions” for a better outcome in a slower tempo yet we have to be sure on it.
4.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal- when there’s no enjoyment and satisfaction with each other anymore, a possibility in terminating the relationship may occur.
The two theorists also talked about the possible outcome which regards to the penetration process. It has something to deal with the rewards minus costs issue. For personal gain--the larger the reward the more self-disclosure may happen.
Next, is the comparison level (CL)-Gauging Relational Satisfaction. We tend to evaluate our actions in mingling with others. The sharing of most common experiences may affect; thus making as happy or sad and simply satisfied.
The last one is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)-Gauging Relational Stability. This time some advocates label social exchange as a “theory of economic behavior”. (Griffin) It is somehow complicated, but the two theorists put it this way; and that it has nothing to do with the self-satisfaction issue anymore. It’s more on the stability of the relationship, how it will last despite the certain dilemmas that may occur. And on how we can stand longer a person’s attitude whether it’s good or bad. “Mutual vulnerability will begin and reciprocal self-disclosure will draw them close”.
But Sandra Petronio (a communication theorist at the University of Indiana) questioned the work of Altman and Taylor. First, there are private information’s from each individual that he/she may not likely to share, and from that we should respect them. He or she merely speaks up and the other person may de disappointed and turned off making the social penetration end.
Another is the comparison of a person’s personal information’s to a fixed layering of an onion. She believes that a person’s private concerns may gradually change and seem to have a series of twists and turns.
The reward-cost issue also puzzled other scholars. Certainly, we don’t have to depend on the best interest we gain from being friends and socializing others, that could be a self-centered intention or action.
Altman and Taylor’s theory seems to pertain to real world experiences. They had just explained how people establish relationships and have just stated several factors which affect relationship of people to others--as to being open to one another. However, there are still gaps and lapses on the proposed assumption.
Social Information Processing Theory: Summary
Nowadays, through computer-mediated communication (CMC) we are able to disseminate information’s about current events, latest fashion trends, health tips and a whole lot more. It has been limited only on the system of transacting businesses since then. But, talking about cyberspace dating or chatting in building close relationships between two people or groups who haven’t seen each other face-to-face is mind boggling.
Not until Joe Walther proposed his Social Information Processing Theory, in which he considered CMC as a tool and can explain that through the exchange of social messages we will be able to create a succeeding relationship online, the same with the face-to-face communication.
But it is also an interpersonal communication theory that suggests that online interpersonal relationship development might require “more time” to develop than traditional face-to-face relationships. In CMC compared to face-to-face communication, personal interaction is absent (Social Presence theory), it makes a rich mix of verbal and nonverbal cue systems into a lean one (Media Richness theory), and people become more self-absorbed (Lack of social context cues).
Although it has been observed that in sending and receiving social messages through CMC nonverbal cues are missing (like tone of voice, facial expressions and gestures), Walther suggested that through verbal cues (the text only message) can be a great help in establishing a new relationship. It’s because through the type written words or message you’ll be able to catch the attention of the person. Another is through extended time (not the amount of social information that can be conveyed online; rather it’s the rate at which that information mounts). Despite our hectic schedules we still have time to chit-chat with others.
Under the SIP theory, there are still predictions about future interaction. There will be certain motivations to see each other sooner or later. Another one is the chronemics (it is the label that nonverbal researches use to describe how people perceive, use, and respond to issues of time in their interaction with others).
Walther introduced also the term hyper personal. It’s explained here the "sender-receiver-channel-feedback" categories.
Sender: Selective Presentation
A person is able to introduce herself/himself in a positive motivation as to attract the receiver. You can show off your good side through the text-based e-mails where the contents are truly impressionable.
Receiver: Over attribution of Similarity
The commonality between the sender and receiver is the issue. Sharing the same likes and dislikes or attributes maybe of great help. This is based on Lea and Spears, Social identity-deindividuation (SIDE).
Channel: Communicating on Your Own Time
Walther refers CMC as an asynchronous channel of communication, meaning parties can use it nonsimultaneously. The recipient can read the messages in his/her free time.
Feedback: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
“The tendency for a person’s expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what he or she anticipated”. The outcome of all the processes they undergo in getting to know each other.
Here in the SIP Theory, the missing link will remain and it’s the absence of nonverbal cues. And there will always be anticipated future interactions that will disrupt the continuous establishment of relationships through CMC only.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Expectancy Violations Theory on the Go!
It took many years of study and researches until Judee Burgoon finally proposed her elegant theory. It took a lot of patience and hard work in making her assumption and be accepted by many people.
At first, her theory is based on Edward Hall’s proxemics (the study of personal space).That personal space is where our personal norms of conduct are embedded and “it’s the individuals preferred distance from others”. (
There are four proxemic zones where individuals choose in communicating with other people (Intimate, Personal, Social, and Public). And when someone violates our personal zone there’s a possibility of an “arousal” (an immediate reaction towards the violators)--depending on our rules in communicating.
But then again, Burgoon had improved her concept into something far better than the first one. Instead of focusing on with spatial violations only, she included some of the nonverbal cues or acts that can create violations towards a person like eye contact, tone of voice and body language. And which gives people an impression to one another during social interactions. She finally named the theory Expectancy Violations Theory or EVT.
EVT has its core concepts: Expectancy, Violation
Expectancy-“is what’s predicted to occur rather than what is desired”. It has something to deal with the context or the place where you had a conversation with a certain person. And it explained how the preferred distance in communicating affects the flow of the conversation. Another, is the relationship whether both of you shared a common interest, and similarities. The status in life may affect also the way in approaching one person. Lastly, are the communicator’s characteristics, which include the age/sex/ place-of birth and other personal aspects of a person. Your expectancies may be affected gradually by the person’s physical aura, personality, and mannerisms also.
Violation
Communicator Reward
EVT has been used to elaborate or explicate the way people behave in a given context when communicating with others. The perceptions of individuals differ from each other, and how they respond to certain actions rather. .
Burgoon also mentioned about the Interaction Adaptation Theory which is an extension of EVT. It’s stated that “interpersonal interactions involve synchronized actions rather than unilateral moves”. She suggested that conversations should not be linked to solos only, it can be duets. Humans can adapt other people’s actions even culture and which further relates to IAT. She also enumerated the three factors of interaction position. The requirement (outcomes that carry out self-worth), expectations (what we need to happen) and desires (we would like to see happen).
All of these assumptions, Burgoon was able to explain that there’s only one truth. “The norms and reactions to their violations are universal. It seeks to predict the outcomes that will result when specific violations are presented”. It has been well-explained since then, and each of us has been given the chance to grasp easily Burgoon’s Theory—and that we should be thankful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)