Comm 101 Midterm 2

Character, expertise, experience, etc of the speaker

Logic, reasoning, and evidence provided to support claims made

Emotional reasons or appeals used to involve the audience’s feelings and personal values

Ethos, logos, pathos

A rhetorical theory that asserts that audiences are not as rational as we have thought of them as being. Logic, rationality, and reasoning are important elements of argumentation. But according to this theory, the most effective arguments include both “reasons for” and “values for” and values are best expressed through narratives

True stories that have values embedded within them

coherence and fidelity

Is the story well organized and structured to create a kind of “dramatic arc”?

Does the story “ring true”? Degree of perceived truthfulness and accuracy

Have been empirically verified, or at least, are able to be empirically verified or disproven

assumptions about the unknown, based on the known

One’s opinions about something

To consciously evaluate other’s messages by evaluating if the speaker is credible, if the speakers message provided sound evidence and reasoning. Essentially, how truthful, accurate, and trustworthy was what the speaker says?

Arguments must be directed to the least intelligent of the people, avoid “scientific ballast” as much as possible, seek not “the many sidedness of scientific teaching”, never permit the faintest suggestion that there is “right on the other side”, no halfway urgings will do; things are either “positive or negative, love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie”

Sub-field from the fields of Philosophy, semantics, and pragmatics (communication) and can be thought of as a critical theory of language use

Refers to our continuous and unrelenting exposure to words all day long, every day

Language is a powerful and beneficial tool, but it has pitfalls. The primary one being that language isn’t “real”. Language can distort our perceptions of what is true and what isn’t. We can be lied to and not know it or we can misinterpret messages and make wrong assumptions

Another pitfall of language use is that language “encourages” polarized thinking in two ways: use of the word “not” and the results of is inaccurate meanings

Another way the we can think (and thus act) inaccurately, is when the language used is very high on the “abstraction ladder”. All words are “abstract” in that they are not real - words are only symbolic representations of life experience, but they are not “the thing” and therefore, all words are only estimates of “reality”. The more abstract the words used, the more likely that misunderstandings will result.

Thinking of what is most common to one’s culture or social group (dog or a cat)

Thinking of what’s true for the person him/herself. (My type of pet.)

Enables us to organize all our ideas in a clear, logical fashion by levels of abstraction by including general concepts all the way to the most concrete examples of the general concepts

The use of categories is a necessary convenience, but it can lead to faulty thinking. It can lead to stereotyping, which is not an accurate way to think

Results in “thinking in similarities” when, in reality, everything is profoundly unique. No single thing or person is exactly the same. When we apply categorical thinking to individuals, that is one example of thinking inaccurately

When we refer to an object or person in a specific way our minds know that the referent is a single individual

But, as soon as we classify that individual into a group that includes others based on a limited and pre-defined set of commonalities, the individuals entity or object loses its individuality in our minds

“arguments” that speakers make that are not logical or accurate, barriers to rational discussions

This is rejection of a piece of evidence simply because the source of the evidence (even “bad people” can provide valid evidence on things)

Simply because something has been done a certain way in the past, it does not follow that it is a necessarily desirable way of doing it in the future. Conversely, just because something is new and innovative, doesn’t make it necessarily better than an “older” way

Simply because a large number of people hold an opinion, it does not follow that the opinion is valid

Making a generalization based on too few examples

Assuming there is a casual relationship between two variables when in fact it could just be a coincidence, or correlation, or some other cause all together

Using someone’s opinion as fact. Believing that experts know everything on a subject

One that reduces the number of alternatives for participants. Roles are set and people are viewed in terms of these roles

One that expands the number of alternatives for individuals in the group. Roles are fluid. Thus, there is little shared understanding of a person’s identity within an open system, so ECs are required.

Used by speakers who value individuality over group identification. The intent of the speaker cannot be inferred from their roles and so they have to be able to express themselves individually in some detail. They mist “elaborate” in order to be understood. Used in groups in which perspectives are not shared

Appropriate in groups in which there is a strongly shared set of assumptions about rules and values. Oriented toward categories social categories for which everyone has the same meanings.

Asserts that family communication is not random but is highly patterned based on particular schemas that determine how family members communicate with one another

These families do not spend much time talking and tend to go along with family authority figures points of view and rules

These families like to talk and accept individuality

High in both conversation and conformity. They have a lot of talk but the family authority, usually a parent, makes decision

High in conversation and low in conformity. Lots of unrestrained conversation, but everyone will decide for themselves what actions to take

Low in conversation, high in conformity. There is a lot of obedience and very little communication. Parents don’t spend a lot of time talking with the kids or explaining their decisions

Low in both conversation and conformity. Involves a hands-off, low involvement approach. “emotionally divorced”. No one really cares too much about one another and especially do not want to talk things through

Asserts that words are “not nothing”. Verbal utterances are not just “puffs of air” that can be easily ignored or brushed off. This is because senders have intentions when choosing to speak. Utterances (when someone says something) are used to make things happen, Part of accurate interpretation of messages requires paying attention to the intention behind the utterance. Speech act theorists call the sender’s intention the illocutionary force of the message

The sender’s intention behind a message

Asserts that utterance can be direct or indirect. When we are indirect in a message, we meaning something without actually saying what is meant. The receiver must infer from the context of the utterance what the speaker actually means.

When the syntactic form of the utterance aligns with the illocutionary force/the intention behind the utterance. Form = function

When the syntactic form of the utterance does not align with the illocutionary force of the utterance. Form does not equal function

The need for connection and intimacy with others and the need for space and autonomy away from other human beings

Establishing a sense of rapport and self or other protection

Responding to indirect messages gives us a sense of connection and intimacy; as though someone knows us so well as to read our minds

Indirectness can help us to avoid confrontation, vulnerability, embarrassment, putting someone “on the spot”, etc. If we hint at things and are rejected, we can always act as though we meant “something else”

Asserts that all language-using human beings experience guilt and guilt influences our perception of self as well as our communication with others

An all purpose word for any feeling of tension within a person, including anxiety, embarrassment, self-hatred/disgust, dissonance, and shame

Viewed as the causes of guilt. These are the principle of the negative, of perfection, and of hierarchy

Through language people can speculate (think) and speak about options. To follow one choice is to reject another. To be aware of what was not chosen can result in guilt for not choosing it

Humans are sensitive to their imperfections. Humans can imagine, through language, a state of perfection. Guilt arises as a result of the cognitive awareness of the discrepancy between the real and the non real, between current reality and our idealistic concepts of reality

In seeking order, people structure society into social pyramids (the smartest, the richest, the sexiest man alive). Competitions and divisions amongst people create guilt because making value based comparisons inherently puts some people “up” in a hierarchy, and some people “down” in a hierarchy

Describe how individual and social identities, meanings, and differences are not pre determined by psychological and biological mechanisms but are instead socially constructed through communication

Analyze human behaviors using a theatrical metaphor, in which the ordinary setting is a stage and people are actors on that stage whose use performances to make an impression on the audience and to have a place within the larger drama. Sees the self as a performed character, not as an organic thing, but as a dramatic effect arising from social convention and from the scene that is presented

When people interact with one another in a focused way. People in this take turns presenting their roles to one another. Each role plays an important part in the “whole drama” of the situation

Using communication and “performances” to actively manage the impression one’s making on others

Concerted, purposeful effort on the part of the “actor” to maintain the impression intended by the “self presentation”

This theory asserts that “the self”, in part, is created in interaction with others. You have come to see yourself as others have and do see you

Also known as the “looking glass self”, an abstract, composite perspective of all the messages you have received from “significant others“. Interaction with others create this and it becomes the general perspective of how we come to view ourselves

The impulsive, unorganized, undirected, unpredictable, creative part of you

The “generalized other” or the “role self” of me. Is the organized, consistent, and typically predictable patterns of being you share with others. The socially acceptable behavior that provides direction and guidance to your social being

Being close (or apart) in proximity. Being involved in a shared situation typically pushes people into interaction. This kind of “forced interaction” by way of being in a shared situation, often leads of interaction, through which the parties involved will attempt to search for common ground, which in turn can result in increased identification

The economic statuses of self and others

The ideas, feelings, opinions, beliefs, and experiences of self and others

Three sources of identification/division: formal, material, idealistic. Segregation increased division amongst groups, where integration expands our opportunities to communicate with different people, which in turn, provides an opportunity to find areas of common experiences. Identification and division are a matter of degree, it is never an all or none kind of experience

This theory asserts that the structure of the language employed in everyday life reflects and shapes the assumptions of a social group. The basic assumption is that the relationships established in a social group affect the type of speech used in the group. This happens because different groups have different priorities, and language emerges from what is required to maintain relationships within the group. People learn “their place in the world” by virtue of the language codes they employ. Roles and language go hand in hand. The kinds of roles that children learn are reinforced by the kind of language employed in the community-primarily, the family. The theory focused on two types of codes.

Human connection that is designed to influence others by modifying their belief, values, or attitudes

Must involve the intent to achieve a goal on the part of the message sender, then communication is the means to achieve that goal, and lastly the message recipient must have free will

The elaborate route. Includes a wealth of information, rational arguments, and evidence to support a particular conclusion. More likely to create long term change, however, not all individuals are capable of receiving these types of messages. Only can succeed when two factors are met: the target must be highly motivated to process the information given and the target must be able to process the message cognitively

Rely on receiver’s emotional involvement and persuade through more superficial means. Used when motivation or ability is missing from the target audience. Persuaders should focus on quick and easy ways to produce change. Only leads to short term change, if any change at all

Authority, commitment, contrast, liking, reciprocity, scarcity, social proof

Emphasizes fleeting emotional responses and are not likely to create long lasting change

Added a third major predictor. Added that sometimes we might intend to behave a certain way, but our plans are not carried out because we don’t have control over the situation. Added the perceived behavioral control to the theory. Also added the subsets of the perceived behavioral control, self efficacy and controllability

Means you plan to act a particular way

The sum of beliefs about something

Perceptions about what others in your social network expect you to do

Comprised of two elements: self efficacy and controllability

An individuals belief that she or he can actually perform the behavior

Recognizes that sometimes things are simply out of our control or are at least perceived that way

Presenting a weaker form (a small dose) of a contrary argument, much like a vaccine includes a weakened form of a virus. People are more resistant to persuasion when this process takes place than when original beliefs were simply bolstered by stronger evidence

Necessary component of any inoculation effort, simply involves a forewarning of a potential persuasive attack on beliefs, making sure the target of the persuasive effort is aware of his or her susceptibility to the attack

Inoculation message should also anticipate the counter persuasive effort by raising specific challenges and then contesting them

Representatives, questions, directives, expressive, commissive, declarations

Utterances designed to fulfill the intention of describing a state of affairs

Utterances designed to fulfill the intention of eliciting information from the listener

Utterances designed to fulfill the intention of getting someone to do something

Utterances designed to fulfill the intention of describing one’s internal experiences

Utterances designed to commit the speaker to something in the future

Utterances designed to fulfill the intention of changing the status of an entity