A First Look at Communication Theory Quotes

“As we gain information about others, our affinity for them grows well. What's the process of getting to know another person? As we get information, we form an impression, and then the relationship grows. [Social Information Process Theory - Joseph Walther]”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Social information process theory initially was developed to understand how online communication shapes the development of interpersonal and group relationships. Can people really form a meaningful connection when their only point of contact is through a computer? [..] People can indeed form relationships online that are just as satisfying- in fact, sometimes even more satisfying- than their offline interactions. [...] Relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form interpersonal impressions of who they are. [Social Information Process Theory - Joseph Walther]”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Wanting knowledge rather than lacking knowledge is what promotes information-seeking in initial encounters with others. [Critique: Nagging Doubts about Uncertainty]”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“After the get-to-know-you phase has passed, [...], uncertainty in close relationships arises from whether we're sure about our own thoughts (Am I really in love?), those of the other person (Does he really enjoy spending time together?), and the future of the relationship (Are we headed for a breakup?). [...] Knoblosh believes uncertainty leads close partners to experience relational turbulance [...], a good metaphor for partners facing uncertainty and interference: When an aircraft encounters a dramatic hange in weather cinditions, passengers feel turbulence as the place is jostled, jerked, and jolted erratically. Similarly, when a [couple] undergoes turbulence as sudden intense reactions to their circumstances. Just as turbulence during a flight may make passengers [reconsider] their safety, fear a crash, or grip their seat, turbulence in a relationship may make partners ruminate about hurt, cry over jealousy, or scream during conflict. [...] In times of relational turbulence, we're likely to feel unsettling emotions like anger, sadness, and fear. It's a bumpy ride that makes us more reactive, or sensitive, to our partner's actions. [Reducing uncertainty in ongoing relationships: Relational turbulence theory]”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“The hierarchy hypothesis: The prediction that when people are thwarted in their attempts to achieve goals, their first tendency is to alter lower-level elements of their message. [...] Berger describes people as "cognitive misers" who would rather try a quick fix than expend the effort to repair faulty plans.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Four approaches to reduce uncertainty:
1) Passive strategy: observe others from a distance. This fly-on-the-wall tactic works best when we spot others reacting to people in informal, or "backstage," settings.
2) Active strategy: ask a third for information. [...] most of us have confidence in our ability to filter out the bias and gain valuable information.
3) Interactive strategy: face-to-face with the other person and ask specific questions. [...] But continual probing in social settings begins to take on the feel of a cross-examination or the third degree. [...] By being transparent, we create a safe atmosphere for others to respond in kin-something the "law of reciprocity" suggests they will do.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities produce increases in uncertainty [Axiom 6, Similarity - An Axiomatic Theory: Certainty about Uncertainty].”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Self-disclosure research confirms the notion that people tend to mete out the personal details of their lives at a rate that closely matches their partner's willingness to share intimate information. That's reciprocity. Reciprocal vulnerability is especially important in the early stages of a relationships. [...] When knowledge of each other is minimal, we're careful not to let the other person one-up us by being the exclusive holder of potentially embarassing information. But when we already know some of the ups and downs of a person's life, an even flow of information seems less crucial. [Axiom 5, Reciprocity - An Axiomatic Theory: Certainty about Uncertainty]”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“A second kind of uncertainty focuses on cognitive questions aimed at discovering who the other person is as a unique individual. [...] When you first meet a person, your mind may conjure up a wild mix of potential traits and characteristics. Reducing cognitive uncertainty means acquiring information that allows you to discard many of these possibilites.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“[...] our drive to reduce uncertainty about new acquaintances gets a boost from any of 3 prior conditions:
1) Anticipation of future interaction: We know we will see them again.
2) Incentive value: They have something we want.
3) Deviance: They act in a weird way.
[...] Our main purpose in talking to people is to "make sense" of our interpersonal world.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Chuch Berger believes it's natural to have doubts about our ability to predict the outcome of initial encounters. [...] "the beginnings of personal relationships are fraught with uncertainties". Unlike social penetration theory, which tries to forecast the future of a relationship on the basis of projected rewards and costs, Berger's uncertainty reduction theory focuses on how human communication is used to gain knowledge to create understanding.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Mead and other symbolic interactionists refer to the composite person in our mind with whom we are in dialogue as our generalized other. [...] I believe he'd regard the hours we're glued to a screen and the responses we receive through social media as playing a big part in shaping the content of that inner dialogue. Those mental conversations are important because:
The generalized other is an organized set of information that the individual carries in her or his head about what the general expectation and attitudes of the social group are. We refer to this generalized other whenever we try to figure out how to behave or how to evaluate our behavior in a social situation. We take the position of the generalized other and assign meaning to ourselves and our actions.
[...] Mead saw society as consisting of individual actors who make their own choices- society-in-the-making rather than society-by-previous-design. Yet these individuals align their actions with what others are doing to form [...] societal institutions in which they take part. It is unclear [...] whether Mead regarded the generalized other as an overarching looking-glass self that we put together from the reflections we see in everyone we know or the institutional expectations, rules of the game, or accepted practices within society that influence every conversation that takes place in people's minds. Either way, the generalized other shapes how we think and interact within the community.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“Scheff defines self-esteem as "freedom from chronic shame". Scheff suggests that affectionate or good-humored laughter almost always dispels shame and boosts our evaluation of the "me" we perceive.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory

“According to Mead, the self is an ongoing process combining the "I" and the "me". The "I" is the spontaneous, driving force that fosters all that is novel, unpredictable, and unorganized in the self. For those of you intrigued with brain hemisphere research, the "I" is akin to right-brain creativity. We know little about the "I" because it's forever elusive. Trying to examine the "I" part of the self is like viewing a snowflake through a lighted microscope. The very act causes it to vanish. Put another way, you can never know your "I", because once it is known it becomes your "me".
The "me" is viewed as an object- the image of self seen in the looking glass of other people's reactions. [...] the role-taking capacity of the human race, we can stand outside our bodies and view ourselves as objects. [...] Mead described the process this way: If the 'I' speaks, the 'me' hears. And 'the I' of this moment is present in the 'me' of the next moment.”
― Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory