3-6 pages--- APA style sheet Paragraph 1 o Introductory paragraph (print at an outcome) o what's the thesis an outcome. Paragraph 2 EVT components from Julies Pet? Paragraph 3 Pats perspective analysis Paragraph 4 Conclusion - closing summary ----Don't don't repeat form a book use a case study as evidence proper citation 1 Theories of Communication Communication is the exchange of information either verbally or non-verbally (Stanton, 2009). Verbal communication occurs when people use words to air their opinions while nonverbal communication occurs when people use actions or symbols to convey messages. Over time, theories have come up to explain the communication process. This paper will concentrate on the expectancy violations theory basing its evidence from the case study. Expectancy violations theory tries to explain the unexpected behavior of individuals during an interaction. This theory suggests that interaction is the best way to eliminate any uncertainties one many have about the behavior of those around them. During an interaction, people often expect the other person to act in a certain way, and if these expectations are not met, they usually end up making negative or positive assumptions about that person. The relationship between the two always determines whether the premises are positive or negative. The expectancy violations theory is made up of three components; expectation, violation valence as well as communicator reward valence. Expectancy is what an individual anticipate from a given interaction (Burgoon, 2015). When you interact with a person for a certain period, you get used to their behavior and so every time you meet them you expect them to act in a certain way. For example, Julie expected pat to smile and make a joke like he usually did every time they met. She also never expected Pat to speak as he had to Melissa because he had not spoken to her in that manner when she delivered the requested referrals late. Pat did not expect to find Julie gossiping with Melissa. Violations valence occurs when a person does not act the way they were supposed to behave. When one violates the set expectations, it can attract a negative or positive interpretation. For example, the violation made by both Pat and Julie was 2 negative because it led to an adverse outcome. Communicator reward valence refers to an evaluation made of the person whose actions do not match expectation. Reward denotes the power of the communicator to provide a need or a service. People of power often have a positive meaning ascribed to their behavior unlike those without power. For example, Julie’s evaluation of pat’s action was positive while Pat's assessment of Julie's actions was negative as can be seen in their interaction. Pat has a high reward valence which explains Julie’s evaluation of him. The expectancy violation theory has two types of expectancies, predictive and prescriptive (Bangerter & Mayor, n.d.). Predictive expectancy is the ability to define the interaction and communication happening in a particular environment while prescriptive expectancy denotes the behavior of people in that environment. Pat had formed an opinion about Julie, and in his mind, he never pictured her as the gossiping kind. Melissa, on the other hand, was always out to get him because she felt like she was the right person for pat’s job. His respect for Julie had been threatened by that encounter which explains why he was not as enthusiastic as he had always been when he saw her. His anger about finding his employees gossiping about him is justifiable. As a manager, he needed people to respect him, and Melissa’s behavior was undermining that. The workplace was not a place of gossip but rather a place to work. He needed them to understand that. The expectancy violations theory is useful for understanding day to day functions. It is the nature of people to set expectations. Sometimes we expect an adverse outcome and get a positive one and vice versa. Whenever something doesn’t go in line with your set expectations, try and remain positive as expectancy violations are part of life. Both pat and Julie’s reaction is understandable. 3 References Bangerter, A. T., & Mayor, E. (n.d.). 14 Interactional theories of communication. Theories and Models of Communication, 23-45. doi:10.1515/9783110240450.257 Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy Violations Theory. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1-9. Stanton, N. A. (2009). The process of communication. Mastering Communication, 1-11. doi:10.1007/978-0-230-36574-2_1 URT (UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY) CHARLES BERGER & WM GUDYKUNST Behavioral Uncertainty Drive to reduce what we don’t know about the other person to increase predictability; Drive States motivate us to seek information: ▪ Abnormal behavior; ▪ Future contact; ▪ Impact of the relationship positive or negative. Coginitve Uncertainty URT, CONTINUED. Predictive Uncertainty – to predict behavior; Explanatory Uncertainty – to understand behavior; Passive Strategies – observational, in nature. ▪ Reactivity searching – observe the subject reacting to a situation; ▪ Disinhibition searching – observe the subject in an informal setting where they are less likely to self-monitor. Active Strategies – active information seeking strategies. ▪ Manipulation of the environment to set the other person up for observation; ▪ Interrogation and self-disclosure – creates an obligation towards reciprosity. JUDEE BURGOON’S EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS THEORY According to the theory, we have expectations about the behavior of another person based on social norms as well as our previous experience with the other person and the situation in which the behavior occurs. We assume to violate is negative and to meet is positive, but not always. Context + Relationship + Communicator’s Characteristics = Expectation Figure 3.1 (Page 41) Reward valance, or the degree to which you view the interaction as positive or negative. Can be based on the person, the interaction, or the possible outcomes (rewards). ATTRIBUTION THEORY Fritz Heider ▪Naive Psychology or the “Nickel Psychologist” whose goal is to Perceive causes of behavior – ▪Perception styles – are personal attempts to create order through the resolution of ambiguities and the establishment of consistent, ordered interpretations of behavior – ▪Truth has little to do with it – for the perceiver, perception becomes reality – hence, we can derive meaning and order from a unordered world of confusing and sometimes random behavior. KELLEY’S COVARIATION MODEL Consensus – the degree to which the behavior is similar to others in the same situation; Consistency – does the actor remain consistent in their behavior over time; Distinctiveness – does the actor behavior differently than ‘normal’ under certain circumstances; Controllability – internal or external. Table 3.1 (Page 39) ATTRIBUTION, CONTINUED Perception styles lead to attributions and resulting behaviors – ▪ Often result in fundamental attribution errors – the tendency to attribute the cause of events to personal qualities. ▪ Others are responsible for what happens to themselves and others and must accept the consequences for those behaviors; however, ▪ We operate under a “self-serving” bias in that we tend to blame the situation for what happens to us and hold ourselves innocent of any consequences for our resulting behavior. FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR Loud Music ▪ Passive Method ▪ Self Blame ▪ Cooperative Strategies ▪ Shared Blame ▪ Competitive Strategies ▪ Blame the other CONSISTENCY THEORIES People are more comfortable with consistency than inconsistency. Consistency, therefore, is a primary organizational principle in cognitive processing, and attitude change can result for the introduction of information that contradicts; and thus, disrupts this balance. FESTINGER’S COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Any two cognitive elements, including attitudes, perceptions, knowledge and behaviors, will have one of three relationships: ▪ Null – or irrelevant ▪ Consistent - consonance ▪ Inconsistent – dissonant (mental stress) COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, CONT’D. Dissonance (metal stress) creates motivation to change (to become consistent with self and others) Dissonance will create a drive to avoid situations in which additional dissonance might occur. CD, CONTINUED Dissonance Reduction Strategies ▪ Justification - ▪ Excuses which shift the dissonance to others; ▪ Selective ignoring – (selective exposure) ▪ Refusing to expose yourself to the source of the dissonance; ▪ Selective attention – only those aspects that support your beliefs are ‘listened’ to. ▪ Selective interpretation – a matter of perspective (Zero Dark Thirty) ▪ Selective forgetting – ▪ Can be “convenient,” or real “Suppressed memories; ▪ Discounting – ▪ Attributing less importance or weight to the dissonance thus reducing its impact. ▪ Selective
Purchase answer to see full attachment