Legitimacy and Practicality of Communication Theories

In my experience with communication theories, I have found the majority of them to be extremely useful tools in understanding human behavior. Learning about these theories have almost always been an enlightening experience that often results in that "aha" moment of realization that I'm not alone in my experiences.

Take for example social exchange theory; I often view the world from an economic standpoint, so the cost benefit analysis of relationships was interesting to learn about as I applied this same mindset to my romantic relationships. In the past I would examine situations like "is it worth the fight", weighing the costs and benefits of having an uncomfortable conversation. This has helped me better understand how I operate personally, and improved my ability to diagnose and analyze relational issues so that I can remedy them.

There are, however, theories that I see less use for, particularly theories that fall under the critical paradigm. This may be because I am in the highest privileged category as a white middle class male, and therefore relate the least in terms of my understanding of the theories, but I also don't tend to see the same accuracy in its application to real life situations as I do in the observational theories. For example, I tend to fall in the camp that believes discrimination has less to do with physical makeup such as sex, and race, but rather socioeconomic status. That's not to say that sexism and racism are not still present; however I do think their rampancy is overstated.

I think there is a lot of practical value to these theories as humans are social creatures. Communication is a key facet of our lives, and is useful in our careers, in our relationships, and to ourselves. The better one understands something, the easier it becomes to master; mastering communication is a life skill that a great deal of people would love to have. Adding communication to the curriculum of high school, or even middle school education would help millions of students who struggle to communicate effectively learn why they are struggling, and how to improve themselves. It would vastly improve our generations ability to work with others, as well as become more comfortable in their own skin; at least that's what communication has helped done for me.

Can face to face relationships really be matched by online-organic ones?

In Social Information Processing Theory, online interpersonal relationships are observed, suggesting that online interpersonal relationships can become just as intimate as face to face relationships. I think this is true in some respects, and maybe misleading in others.

The obvious positive of computer-mediated communication (CMC), is that you have time to premeditate your response, allowing for potentially shier individuals to become more comfortable and produce the response they hope to convey in person, but for whatever reason struggle with. The theory suggests that although it may take more time to develop an interpersonal online relationship, the outcome is often the same as one that is built primarily face to face. I tend to agree with this sentiment as I remember back in junior high when everyone used AOL instant messenger, it was much easier to start a friendship by talking over AOL than in person, and over time that allowed for me to be more comfortable when I would see them face to face. 

On the other hand, it created situations where I thought I was better friends with someone than I really was, as there was a screen blocking me from reading nonverbal signs that would suggest someone was not interested in the relationship. The theory argues that while there aren’t nonverbal cues such as smiling, or laughing to judge the authenticity of someone’s response, the time elapsed between messages acts as a separate non-verbal cue exclusive to CMC. I agree this is a nonverbal cue, however the meaning of that cue is much less transparent than when someone laughs when you flirt with them. A delayed response can mean a multitude of things; they could be playing hard to get, they could be busy, or they could be not interested. Face to face nonverbal cues, in my opinion, are more easily readable, and therefore more reliable in judging the stage of the relationship.

Where I tend to disagree most is that a pure CMC relationship can become as intimate as a face to face relationship. From my perspective, intimacy requires feeling; I think CMC relationships can build to an extent where you would be comfortable in person moving forward, but if there’s no in-person interaction at all, the relationship cannot take the next step in terms of achieving true intimacy.

PS: One other potential problem with purely online relationships; honesty can be a bit of an issue...

Inconsistent Nurturing as Control Theory and Eating Disorders

Over the weekend I checked out a research article on how Inconsistent Nurturing as Control Theory (INC) applies to the connection between mother-daughter relationship's and eating disorders. According to the reading, INC looks at how a significant other acts in relation to an "afflicted individual", in this case the relationship between mothers of eating-disorder-affected daughters. The theory basically claims that inconsistency in how mothers treat their daughters has a strong affect on whether or not they will develop an eating disorder. After completing the study, the results backed up their hypothesis. If you would like an in depth look at what the study found, I have provided a link at the bottom, as I will now focus on what I thought of the study.

The application of INC theory to mother-daughter relationships has both strengths and weaknesses; the strength of the research is that it highlights that the issue is most likely family-related, and not genetic. This is an important distinction for further research as some have argued that these disorders may be personality-related, stemming from heredity. Some weaknesses of the study are sample size and accuracy. The sample size was small, as they discuss in their limitations portion of the research; it was limited to 40 women that were found through flyers that advertised the study on college campuses. Small sample sizes make it difficult to strongly validate statistical info, which plays into the accuracy issue. The accuracy of the results were also discussed, as the info was based solely on the "afflicted" women's account of the situations, and not on the mother's. This makes the answers somewhat unreliable. The study clearly has statistical weaknesses, but the general premise of the study was to show a correlation between mother-daughter relationships and eating disorders, and it achieved this.

There are some practical implications of this theory, as well as its findings; the findings demonstrate that eating disorders are more likely to be related to family issues, than a genetic personality issue that one has to cope with and overcome on their own. I find this extremely important for two reasons; I believe if one thinks that an issue is genetic, or inherent with who they are, then they feel they have no control of it. This leads to a lack of initiative to fix the issue and furthers the problem. Secondly, if research continues to show that family issues are amongst the highest factors that contribute to the problem of eating disorders, education to families, specifically mothers is paramount in attacking this issue. As far as practical implications of the theory, these findings pave a way for further research on addictive behaviors through INC theory. I think this theory could be applied to any behavior that has addictive qualities, ranging from addiction to drugs, to addiction to over-exercising. One interesting study that could come from this would be the relationship between father and son, and how that relates to addiction to video games.

The article was a thought provoking read that I would encourage anyone interested in family-dynamics to check out. While the study has statistical flaws, its real value lies in its ability to diagnose the leading factors that lead to eating disorders in young women, which can hopefully lead to further research and stronger statistical findings.

The study can be found here: 
https://my.oregonstate.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4388423-dt-content-rid-31529081_2/courses/COMM_430_001_W2014/Prescott%20and%20Le%20Poire.pdf

Feminist Standpoint Theory

Feminist Standpoint theory is an interpersonal communication theory in which it is believed that sex and gender differences are related to inequities and inequalities in society. 

Some that study this theory would claim that “dominant groups in society have little motivation to understand nondominant groups”. This statement can be interpreted a multitude of ways, but how I read it, it means that those with power are self-motivated, and due to their lack of turbulence in life, have little need to think of the less fortunate or marginalized society as it doesn’t affect their own.  

I would posit that this lack of listening is what leads to the inextricable connection between feminism and action, as one of the main assumptions of feminist standpoint theory is that one should challenge the status-quo if it debases or devalues women. If part of the M.O. of the status quo is to ignore the marginalization of an aspect of society, then the shrill cry of feminists would fall on deaf ears, as such I think this heightened the need for feminist groups to stand on their soap boxes and demand change, ergo giving them their label as activists.

For this reason, I think feminism gets a bad rap, however it becomes difficult to then separate feminist beliefs and actions from the activism, as it has played a pivotal role in creating media attention. Whether it is a good or bad thing is not for me to decide; some believe there is no such thing as bad media attention, others disagree. What is important to know is the circumstances of how feminism has garnered it's image, and from there you can decide whether or not that image is just.

Being a Comm Major

My personal experiences of telling people I study communication has consistently been met with raised eyebrows and concerned questions: So what do you actually study? What does it mean to be a communication major? 

Well, to fully answer this question, the word communication must be somewhat defined. My view of communication is this: it is the act of sending and receiving messages in a quest for shared meaning. By this I mean humans communicate in order to further understand each other, as well as relay their own opinions.

So what does it really mean to be a communication major? Is it just about how people talk? Communication is more than just the back and forth human interaction; it studies the array of ways in which humans use signs, symbols, and language to send and receive messages, as well as how to master the purpose and process of these different styles of communication. By seeking an understanding of what communication is, we as students also develop a better talent of communicating ourselves. Being a communication major means learning how violating one's expectations can forever alter future encounters; it means analyzing the use of non-verbal cues in interpersonal relationships; it means studying the use of persuasion and logic in all walks of life. Studying communication helps us better grasp the world we've created around us, with the hopes of further improving it through knowledge.