Standpoint/Muted Theories

In the TV show, What about Brian, it deals with a group of friends that are in their 30s. Brian and his friend, Dave, both work at the same company. However, this season, a new woman came onto the show, as CEO of the company where Brian and Dave work. Now when applying a theory to her position, how she’s treated, and how she interacts with her employees, both the standpoint and muted-group theories are reflected. The standpoint and muted-group theories have a focus on inequality in society.

The standpoint theory notes specific differences in communication between men and women. In turn, because of those differences, cultural expectations are created. Women in this culture are seen as weak and not capable of power, or leading others. In What about Brian, it is apparent the men have a problem with her being over them. The guys will trash her office, leave her sexual notes, and stare at her as she walks down the hallways. There is no respect shown for her, or her position at that company. The men obviously come from a different standpoint than the women in that office, because none of the women take part in any of those actions.

When comparing those actions to the muted-group theory, she is seen as a part of a powerless group, women. Women are not heard in society, and her perspectives are different than those men who work under her. When she does show her power, and takes command of a project, she is seen as stuck-up. This is exactly what the muted-group theory supports, because she is proving she can be powerful in business, she is seen as a snob. Brian and Dave even show shock sometimes, when she makes them feel inferior or not good enough for a job, just because she’s a woman.

Genderlect Styles

When thinking about the cultural differences between men and women, the movie, You’ve Got Mail, came to mind. The movie came out in 1998, but it left an impact because it was revolutionary in that it portrayed an online romance. It was a classic because it’s your typical love story, with miscommunication between a man and a woman. Below is an excerpt IM conversation between NY152 (Tom Hanks) and SHOPGIRL (Meg Ryan) from the movie.

NY152: Had a feeling you’d be online. I can give you advice now.
SHOPGIRL: I don’t think you can help.
NY152: Is it about love?
SHOPGIRL: My business is in trouble.
NY152: I’m a brilliant business man; it’s what I do best! What’s your business?
SHOPGIRL: No specifics, remember?
NY152: Minus specifics, it’s hard to help. Except to say, go to the mattresses.
SHOPGIRL: What?
NY152: It’s from the Godfather; it means you have to go to war.
SHOPGIRL: What is it with men and the Godfather?
NY152: The Godfather is the I Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question. What should I pack for my summer vacation? “Leave the gun, take the cannoli”
What day if the week is it? “Maunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday”
The answer to your question is “Go to the mattresses”
You’re at war “It’s not personal, it’s business. It’s not personal, it’s business.”
Recite that to yourself every time you feel you’re losing your nerve. And I know you worry about being brave, this is your chance. Fight! Fight to the death.

In that conversation, it couldn’t be clearer when Shopgirl asks, “What is it with men and the Godfather?” I know I asked myself that same question. Men worship the Godfather, women haven’t even seen it. It could be because, as the Genderlect theory points out, conversations between men and women reflect male domination. Also as pointed out in the theory, men’s communication needs to reflect status, whereas women seek connection. The Godfather is a movie all about male dominance and status. Even though it deals with the mafia, men have always been fascinated with “leaders of the pack”; it just enforces this reality of men being in control.

When NY152 applies the Godfather to Shopgirl’s issue, she doesn’t find help. She does not receive the connection, nor understand where he is coming from. I’m sure she would hope for a response similar to, “I’m sure business will pick up, you are capable of handling it if you’ve gotten this far.”
Women are more likely to ask questions, and expect to receive a valuable answer. NY152 responded the way the theory predicts, they tell stories, are concerned with status, and portray male dominance.
Even the one of last lines of their conversation, “It’s not personal, it’s business”, is Donald Trump’s tag line for his TV show, the Apprentice.
This just reinforces the theory, men seeking status and control.

Face-Negotiation theory

I couldn’t think of a huge conflict that I or anyone I know has been in recently, but I did think of a small scale example that took place at dinner the other night. I was describing a situation to my dad about how my boss just hired someone else to help out with receptionist work at the desk. I explained why she wanted more hours, and that since she already knew people that worked in the salon, it would be beneficial. Well as he was talking to me and asking questions, he said, “So she’s going to be a hairdresser?”
I said, “No, she’s going to be a receptionist.”
Then he used face-assertion by claiming that’s what he had just said. According to the chapter, face assertion is used to protect the need for inclusion. He demanded that he knew he said receptionist. I said no, you didn’t say receptionist, you said hairdresser, twice. He wanted to be part of the conversation and understand what I was saying; he wanted to be included in the dinner conversation.
He kept arguing because he wanted to save face, and not admit he was wrong, or had made a mistake. So instead of letting it go, he wanted to avoid being embarrassed by trying to convince me he was right and he did indeed say receptionist.

By the way, I dropped it and let him have his glory, so in my case I gave-face because I knew my dad’s need for inclusion.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management theory

In 2003, I went down to Orlando FL and worked as an intern for Walt Disney World for 6months. During that time, I met people from all over the world, and formed a lot of friendships. One friendship turned into a relationship, and can be applied to a few of the axioms discussed in this theory.

Every relationship starts with attraction. Usually initial attraction is formed from perceived similarities we form about someone. (Ex. I like American Eagle, and he’s wearing American Eagle). Axiom 17 supports that if there is an increase in perceived similarities between ourselves and a stranger, our anxiety will decrease and we will be more willing to have a conversation.

Axiom 27 states an increase in attraction to strangers will decrease our anxiety and increase confidence in predicting their behavior. I couldn’t agree more with this statement, if you feel confident in how you feel for someone, you’ll feel confident to predict their reaction to those feelings. This was the case with David and I, since we were so attracted to each other, we weren’t as anxious or uncertain.

Obviously the more you get to know someone, the more you find out about their interests and what you have in common. David and I love Italian food, like the same music and developed a lot of mutual friends. Since we had so many similarities, we became even more interested in each other. Axiom 20 clearly says an increase in perceived similarity will decrease anxiety and increase the ability to predict behavior, reducing uncertainty. We had no problems finding things to do, figuring out who to hang out with, or what to talk about.

Of course all good things have to come to an end. I was moving back to Ohio and David was still in Orlando for 2 more months before heading off to New York. When we left Orlando, so did all of our similarities. We had no mutual friends to hang out with, and no common places to meet. Yet when we did have that relationship, the anxiety/uncertainty management theory proves valid in my experience.

Spiral of Silence

After the horrific tragedy that took place at Virginia Tech just about a week ago, major controversy was brewing. NBC showed viewers pictures, letters, and videos of the shooter responsible for the greatest mass shooting in U.S history. A lot of people started to complain and a few of the parents who lost a loved one in the tragedy refused to hold an interview w/NBC. My initial reaction to all of this outrage was shock. I thought how could anyone not want to see what horrible person he was? What better closure for the students then to have a face to put with the action that has caused so many people pain?
But as the spiral of silence conveys, people feel pressured to conceal their views when they think they’re in the minority. I did just that.

The theory also says that TV accelerates the spiral of silence, which, in this case it did. The more outrage that people expressed on the showing of the videos, the more outnumbered I felt. The more I started to wonder…maybe I’m wrong? Maybe showing this video is humiliating for people, and NBC shouldn’t be showing it….
I know I was not the only person in America who didn’t think it was wrong. Yet all I saw in the media was the opposing opinion of mine, that it is horrible.

I feel this theory is very applicable to life in general. No one likes to be alone, and no one likes to be looked at as “different.” The more you hear blue is everyone’s favorite color, the more you start to wonder if maybe it’s really your favorite color too. It all sounds silly, but it is pretty true. In my case with these videos, I truly felt almost disgusted with myself for not thinking it was wrong to show the videos. My opinion started to sway the more interviews w/students I saw saying how the media needs to stop focusing on the killer, and focus on the lives lost. I found myself nodding. Yet, then, one student said, “If you don’t want to see the videos, don’t turn on the TV. No one is making you watch them.” I nodded again, and was glad that he reassured my initial opinion. The fear of isolation kept me quiet, and the media definitely pushed the majority opinion. This theory is very accurate in my opinion.

Agenda-Setting Theory

The movie Anchorman points a finger and laughs at how influenced people can be by what they watch on TV. One of the quotes in the movie proclaims, "If Ron Burgundy says it...it's the truth!" The movie reflects the culture of America in the 1970's. Action news was just becoming big in this time, so what the news anchors would say, people would believe.

According to the theory of agenda-setting, the media tells people what to think about and how to think about it. In the movie, although humorous, this is exactly what the various news stations in the movie did. There was a competition for the highest ratings, leading to competition to having the best stories. The news stations would elaborate a little, and stories would be evaluated as to whether or not to be shown. They were in control of what was seen, and how it was reported upon. It seemed like every story they reported on would start with the graphic of "breaking news." This supports the media agenda by trying to show the public what is important.

News reporters had reputations back then also. The news was personal, people knew who you were if you were a reporter. It was almost this celebrity status, and that was clearly shown in the movie. This gives a backbone to how people were influenced, because they would watch the people they liked and wanted to watch. So if Ron were to say something, they listened, believed it, and almost in a sense, worshiped his words. The movie shows people just staring at their tv screens taking in each and every word. This point is even more prominent when one of Ron's co-workers messes up the teleprompter and makes him say the f-word. Ron doesn't realize he says that, and once the segment is over, all chaos breaks loose. Ron gets hate mail from fans, he gets fired from the station, and people throw trash in his face. That was the impact a news reporter had on the public. Regardless of a comedy movie or not, there is an underlying truth to how our culture was and still is in the face of media. And shows just how manipulative to a point the media really can be.

Cultivation Theory

If I were to use my parents as research and study their tv habits, my findings would correlate quite well with the Cultivation Theory. I would rate them as heavy tv viewers, but not extreme. The reason I am using them as an example is they tend to watch shows that they can identify with. This theory claims you identify with the enviornment you're watching, and I think that is comforting to people. In particular they like to watch a lot of sitcoms, usually dealing with the husband/wife scenerio. They also watch shows more geared to their generation without noticing...like dancing w/the stars, tv land, and seinfield.

My mom is more affected by the media than my dad. She constantly worries that something bad is going to happen to me when I go out, and hates if I drive somewhere far by myself. She lets the news pour fear into her, and that is what the theory says- heavy tv viewers accept the reality portrayed on TV. I haven't decided if it is good or bad, I know it is important to know what goes on in the world, but it's not good to be paranoid.

Overall, I really don't agree or disagree with this theory. It makes valid points, yet, as the critique points out, it's hard to measure. People have different experiences, cognitive abilities, there are all sorts of things that can influence perception. We don't all watch TV the same way, and we don't all react to it the same way either.

Dramatism

Persuasion, symbols and signs have been integral parts of human advancement. Take for example our history and all of the leaders it includes. Each one of those leaders had an impact on our future, and they would not have been successful without persuasion and the use of signs and symbols. Each of those leaders used lenses to further examine their audience, and persuade them using identification.

One leader in particular comes to mind in this theory to me. Not really a pleasant thought, but Adolph Hitler exercised dramatisim to no end. Especially when examining the dramatisic pentad, he certainly knew what he was doing.

To break it down into the five pieces, the unification of Germany could very well be the purpose. Hitler wanted nothing more than to join together a group of people who all thought alike and all shared the same values and beliefs. The scene in this instance would be post WWI Germany. Hitler knew this was a vulnerable and terrifying time, so he played his cards right by embracing the environment he was surrounded by. He used a lot of conferencing, or mass gatherings to join his people and make announcements. All of these huge gatherings that would last hours on end certainly make up his agency. As I mentioned earlier, these leaders persuaded people. In this dramatistic pentad, propaganda serves as the act. Propaganda was happening everywhere, from posters to symbols on flags. Lastly, the most obvious of the five pieces is the agent, which would be Hitler himself. He was doing the act and doing it very well with a lot of support.

As outlined in this theory, if you cannot connect with your audience, you cannot persuade them. Hitler gave Germany a sense of belonging, of “oneness” and greatness. It went deeper than identification; it was almost the epitome of persuasion for such an awful purpose.

Cultural approach to organizations

When I used to work for a bank as a teller, I can think of many instances where the culture of that organization applies to this theory. The structure of any bank has many levels, creating many sub-cultures. My personal experience working at the bank taught me a lot about the business world.

Once I looked at the three types of narratives, I realized that corporate stories were posted everywhere at the bank. We had our own intranet that included everything from daily jokes to the new vice president of a regional office. It also was used daily to track international exchange rates and updated company policy procedures. This was defiantly an illustration of the company and its values. Especially when there was down time, I’d find myself browsing the intranet an awful lot. The slogans and current advertisements were also abundant on our net, enforcing the ideology of management to its fullest.

I find that a lot of times, personal stories in an organization usually are discussed with other employees casually. I do not view them as planned and structured conversations that eventually will be etched in someone’s memory. They are positive comments about ourselves that make us look good to other people in the organization, especially newer employees. I remember a lot of times when I would talk to another teller, or hear stories of mistakes made, I am guilty of chiming in and making it known that I’ve never made that mistake before.

Collegial stories are my favorite because they are the meat and potatoes of the organization’s culture. It is made up of all of the shared perceptions by employees, and the gossip that follows. I also like this narrative because it tells it how it is, what really goes on behind the scenes. I remember a lot of collegial stories I heard when I first started at the bank; why corporate hired this manager, what you really have to do to earn a bonus, and the real reason why only 5 employees have been with the company for over 10yrs.

The bank didn’t really consist of any rituals, just a conference call here and there when corporate decided to check in. All in all, the culture in the bank was very diverse because it consisted of so many different offices and regions. In my branch, all of the tellers were against the manager because she was very ineffective. In turn, we used all three narratives to either vent, explain why we were venting, or to make sense of the web we were spinning. It was a very small branch, so we had to be very careful with what we said, where we said it, and who can hear it.

Adaptive Structuration Theory

The Breakfast Club is a movie, based around a group of students who spend a day together in detention. There is the jock, the criminal, the brain, the weirdo and the princess. What makes this movie so real and interesting to watch, is the fact that it is real, it is very true to life. Obviously I did not make this connection before, but the Adaptive Structuration theory is apparent throughout the movie. Just as the theory states, we normally don’t even realize how we effect the group and how the group effects us. The students in this movie start out with nothing in common and nothing to talk about. However, by the end, their ability to adapt rules and resources within themselves is clear by the friendships formed.

One instance from the theory takes place when the criminal, who is the “active agent”, has the ability to motivate the other students. They aren’t allowed to go out in the hallway, make any noise, or switch seats. He finds a way to get everyone involved in this escape out of the library to go to his locker. In this case, power, morale and communication are definitely combined for all five of them to logically make the decision together. As the movie progresses, you see that he did make a difference, because the adventure out of the library helped to open the communication lines.

Where this theory is represented the best, is the end of the movie. The proctor for detention tells them they each need to write a paper before they are allowed to leave. This paper had to say something along the lines of what they learned from their mistake. This group of students came together and made a decision. They came together as a group, and collaborated ideas. First it was agreed that only one paper will be written, and it will be from all of them. They then used their rules and resources effectively, by having each person provide something unique to the paper. The brains kid was in charge of actually writing the paper, and the others would tell him what to write.

Just as the theory supports, whenever they all interact, it has an impact on the group. What they created was a group symbol in a way, a collective understanding of their time spent in detention. The letter is a result of group structuration because it formed from interaction with each other. The letter itself is the action, the end result; the students took in place of abiding by the rules of detention, which is consistent with their behavior as the movie develops. It is a very simple, short letter explaining just enough and leaving a smile on your face. This group of students is definitely a rare mix, and fun to watch adapt to each other, just as we do in groups all the time.

Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making

This past summer, for one of my classes, we were assigned a group project to do. There were five of us because the class was split into three groups. Looking back at this assignment, we certainly fulfilled all four of the functions discussed in this theory.

To start, we ran into the problem first hand. All of us had different schedules, which left us one day where we could all meet and work on the project. Some people didn’t have cars, some of us worked, and we only had one week to do it. I was glad we figured out a time on Sunday to all meet and collaborate. Since we had the problem of meeting together to work on things, we all decided to break up the areas of the project and tackle them individually. This sometimes is scary to do, because the quality of work in one person’s section could be completely opposite of someone else’s. However, with all things said and done, I feel we did a good job on analyzing the problem.

I wouldn’t say we really set goals, we set deadlines. Since we only had a week to finish this project, we had to have certain things done by the time we were meeting on Sunday. We obviously wanted to have a good presentation, but we didn’t have an exact outline of goals we wanted to achieve.

Within this project, we were doing a PowerPoint presentation also. When thinking of all the possible pictures and layouts of the slides, it became a little unorganized. We wanted to have a lot of options, but then people would feel picked on or not as important if the group nixed their slide idea. Our brainstorming definitely lasted longer than it should have, I think the more people in a group, the more conflict there will be. This idea as a whole became a little messy because we all did a certain number of slides, and tried combining them together. We didn’t follow the function of identification of alternatives exactly, because I do remember quite a bit of criticism. Although there were a lot of alternatives we had to work with, and we did finally agree on what we were and were not keeping.

The evaluation function comes into play towards the end of the project. Those last few hours of completion caused everyone to get a little nervous. We wondered how the presentation was going to go and who was saying what. Do we like what everyone produced? It was the fine-tuning part of our project where all of the positive and negative characteristics were evaluated.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

With this theory, I thought of how I have been as a college student.
I tried to think of times that I can remember having cognitive dissonance.
Then it hit me. How many times have I said, "I am going to study and do really well for this exam". Then the time comes to study and I blow it off until the last hour I have left. Why?
I said I would study, and instead I find other things to do. This is an obvious inconsistancy between my attitude towards studying and my behavior.

In the beginning of my reasoning, I know I like to reassure myself I'm doing the right thing. I'll sit and say, well, I have been reading, I know the material, a few hours is all I'll need. Then when it comes down to that last hour, my attitude suddenly changes. This is due to the pressure of knowing that I don't have any other time to study. Now I am forced to do it. All the sudden, the issue of studying becomes more important. Postdecision dissonance is now in play. I need to reassure myself that I will be able to study in this last hour.

Then it comes to test time, and I don't do as well as I had hoped. I realize why and tell myself I need to study harder the next time. Sometimes, it becomes a vicious cycle of cognitive dissonance. Other times, I get it through my head and hit the books hard. So this theory is very true, and also critiqued well by knowing that we can't always predict attitude and behavior.

Elaboration Likelihood Model

The internet is a good example of the ELM theory.
When comparing television with the internet, more people are starting to use the internet more than television.
I think this has to do with being able to select what you see.
Just as in the theory, people use their "mental filter" to browse whatever interests them online, rather than being forced to wait for commercials on television.
The theory also claims that statements that are personally relevant become tested. So if I am concerned about eating healthy, for example, then I will find that information I need online. My concern and interest in eating right becomes my motivation to elaborate ideas I read in the articles the internet produces. Television does not provide me with that information I am looking for, rather, I might have biased elaboration during the commercials because I am expecting to see all fast food commercials which contradict my thinking.

This theory also touches on credibility being the most interesting cue on the peripheral route. This is why Dr.Phil is now linked with Match.com advertisements. More and more people are in search of finding someone, but not all the shows on Dr.Phil correlate with their own lives. Consequently, turn to the internet while using your credible source to find the information you need. With sites like Match.com, you determine what information comes back to you, and it all is personally relevant. Dr.Phil will become more persuasive being in both the television and internet mediums, than just television alone. In fact, the slogan for Match.com is, "It's okay to look." This slogan is a mirror image of one of the peripheral cues in this theory, social proof.

Overall, I think this theory is dead on, especially for my generation. We pick out foods we don't like in salads as carefully as we monitor what we will subject ourselves to see.
With the internet, searching for questions is endless, and private.
Being able to find only the stores you like to shop at and the brands you wear is easy.
With television, we are becoming more and more impatient. TiVo has helped the commercial problem to an extent, but as the theory states, we make an effort to kid ourselves in search for the truth. We will see and read what we want, and that's that.

Constructivism

I think there is a time in every person’s life when they don’t get along with their parents.
My time lasted quite a while with my mother. My friends used to always tell me that I told my mom too much information, and I should just not tell her everything. Well it took me a while to realize I had to listen to them. Meanwhile, I was unknowingly developing the ability to anticipate my mother’s reactions. I was producing person-centered messages to my mother where I knew what to say and when to say it, knowing how she would react. I told her in a tactful way enough information to keep her satisfied and not the things she really didn’t need to know. This saved us both a lot of yelling.

I felt this simple interaction also follows suit with the GPA model. My goal was to include my mother in my life, and still use my friend’s advice. So I came up with a plan of action by finding out how my mom reacted to certain activities I’d talk about, or friends I’d be with. She would tell me flat out whether or not she agreed with whatever it was I was doing, and tell me if she liked the people I was hanging out with. Obviously I didn’t take everything she said to heart, but it was more or less a collection of what she felt was acceptable for me and what she didn’t like me doing. So in a way, I then knew what I should and should not tell her, based on her previous reactions.

These procedural records that I stored in my memory served as cheat sheets if I wanted a certain outcome. The last part of the GPA method is the action where I give my big speech and hope all goes as planned! I knew how my mom was going to react if I told her I was with a certain person, so I would just simply say I was out with someone else. That way, I let her know what I did and where I was, so that accomplished my goal. Yet I also hid the fact of who I was with to prevent any sort of outrage, which was part of my plan. It let her know enough to keep her happy, and let me conceal enough to fulfill my goals.

Relational Dialectics

In the movie, The Devil wears Prada, dialectical tension is abundant. The main character, Andy, is in a relationship with her boyfriend Nate. She has been searching for a job for months, and when she finds one she is determined to make it work. However, as the movie progresses, we see that her job as assistant is more a way of life. The job nearly consumes her every move and as she becomes more involved, her relationship with Nate starts to deteriorate.

What first made me think of this movie was when Andy was a few months into the job, and she came home late one evening. Nate had made dinner for them and bought her flowers since they hadn’t really spent much time together. Andy doesn’t make it to dinner…in fact she doesn’t come home until Nate is almost ready to go to work. He is waiting in their apartment when she comes home, and he is miserable. He tells Andy how she isn’t the same girl he once knew, that she is never home and she doesn’t care about anyone but herself and her job. Andy and Nate argue over this situation, but do not see eye to eye, and go their separate ways to bed. This exemplifies the integration-separation dialectic because Andy expresses how she wants to be this wonderful girlfriend, and be the best assistant she can all at once. Andy, without knowing it, had been pulling herself into inclusion within the fashion industry and discarding her college friends and boyfriend. It is not so much that this was intentional, but rather an inevitable tension. On the flip side, Nate was just asking for more connectedness, some time for their relationship to grow. They struggle with this dialectic for a while throughout the movie.

The stability/change dialectic also takes place within various parts during the movie. As Andy is introduced to this foreign world of fashion, she quickly becomes bored with her past ways of life. She starts to hate all of her old clothes, hangs out with new people, and starts questioning her love for Nate. There is a time where she reflects on her past memories, while shuffling through pictures in her apartment At that point of reflection I think she became aware of how predictable her life had become. This new job, was not something she would normally go after, so she felt a satisfied with her decision to keep pushing forward. Andy was defiantly experiencing more of an internal battle of certainty and uncertainty, not knowing which direction she wanted her life to go.

Lastly, I didn’t really notice much noteworthy expression/non-expression between Andy and Nate. However, they did seem to attempt to manage the other two dialectic problems in various scenes. When Andy and Nate had their first argument, Andy made an agreement to do a sort of spiraling inversion approach. She set up appointments with her boyfriend to just go out with him and not think abut work. Then the next day she would do just work and let Nate figure something else out. Andy thought she could manage their relationship successfully this way, but the outcome proves her wrong. Going back and forth constantly was wearing Andy out and started to manipulate her every move. Overall, this relationship was a messy one for sure. In the end, Andy quit her life-consuming job in order to get Nate back.

Social Information Processing Theory

I had a relationship that started out strictly on the internet.
It was a very personal relationship that eventually developed into a face-to-face relationship.
I do remember that it took me a much longer time to trust this person.
What made it so easy to disclose information to them though, was the fact that we were just exchanging information. This was the interpersonal information stage, if you will, of this relationship. We gathered information about one another. I'd ask a question, he'd ask a question, etc. It also made for good company. When no one else is around, you have your computer "friend" to talk to. Someone is listening to you, taking the time to think about what you are saying, and responding back.

Once we began talking daily, it started to become a commitment. It would be around the same time everyday, I knew he'd be online waiting to talk. The impression formation stage takes place around this time because we were very comfortable with each other. We knew a lot about each other, how we respond to certain situations, and understood little quirks. The quirks could be typos he'd always make on certain words, or little internet faces to help interpret the emotion behind the words. It becomes very real. There were many expressions of affinity between us, we loved each other's company. It's not like either of us were bored or had no life either. I was in two extracurricular activites and keeping a 3.8GPA, and he worked part-time while going to school. This was definatley the relationship development stage.

We obviously held positive impressions of each other, so consequently we wanted to meet. It was scary at first to realize we had gotten to that point. At one time I did stop and think, wow, am I ready to meet him? It sounds silly because we meet people all the time unexpectedly. This was different because it was like meeting your cyber journal. The unseen, unheard place where all of your thoughts and feelings are poured into everyday. There is the vulnerability factor that makes meeting such a huge step. There is the risk of being evaluated and judged by more than just your words.

Overall, this theory makes good points. I do agree there are differences between relationships online and in person. However, I don't think online relationships can be so cut and dry. There are a lot of people in the world who are on the internet. If you take into account all of the cultures, ages, and motives within each individual, the possibilites are endless. Each single interaction can be completley different. Just because my experience happened to follow most of the theory's statements, doesn't mean every online relationship will.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

When I met my last boyfriend, I knew nothing about him. He was rooming with one of my dorm friends, so that is essentially how we met. I can relate to the uncertainty reduction theory on many levels, and also disagree with some of it.

For instance, when trying to learn more about him, I tried getting information from any avenue I could. I was passive, and watched him interact with my friend, and see how he interacted with his family. I also was active in the beginning and asked my friend and other people who knew him to tell me things about him I should know. Silly things like does he have any funny habits, how sociable is he, because I essentially wanted to reduce my uncertainty. Obviously, once we became a couple I would go the interactive route and come right out and ask him questions. I would try to derive all kinds of information from him, but he wasn’t as open as I would’ve liked. I would find myself asking a lot of cognitive questions because he wasn’t abiding by axiom1. It seemed like the more we talked, and the more I told about myself, the less I learned about him.

We did share some common ground, like having some of the same friends, so that did help with feeling comfortable. The uncertainty in that area did go down, so I do agree with axiom 8. Also, I was sort of relying on the “opposites attract” saying, so part of me wasn’t really relying on axiom 6 to feel the need to find similar activities and interests. However, that might’ve been part of our problem in the long run, and possibly why we didn’t last as a couple.

Lastly, I partially disagree with axiom 2 because in this relationship, he would nod and smile but it went somewhere else. I found that he would act like he was listening, but he really wasn't. So I do feel sometimes those non-verbal expressions can be misleading. Also, in this relationship I didn't really notice axiom 5 much. Even in the beginning, everything was almost lop-sided and not following the norm, which might've been why I was intrigued. Because this relationship was so different in certain ways, I think it followed some of the theory, and it didn't in other parts. In essence, I think with every situation, there are things that will not fall into these categories for this theory. Like any situation, different cultural values and individual characteristics are the true foundation for any relationship. A theory can pin-point reasons, but it cannot predict human emotion. Human communication does help to reduce our uncertainty of others, but it is not the only factor.

Social Penetration Theory

I see the Social Penetration Theory alive and well almost everyday at my job.
I work in a salon & spa, so it’s pretty much an invitation to gossip.
As one of the receptionists, I am pretty much the liaison between client and stylist.
Not only can I see relationships developing between people and their stylist, I notice my personal relationships changing with our clients as well.
I have worked at the salon for a year, and to sit back and reflect on what has changed puts this theory even more into perspective.

According to the two core concepts, I’d have to agree that relationships can develop almost exclusively to the depth and breadth of self-disclosure.
The first time I met a lot of the clients, I didn’t disclose any personal information, and neither did they. It was the normal, boring, breadth without depth, “Hi how are you?” “Good.”
However, my counterpart, Robin who has been there for 2 yrs, had a very deep understanding of their lives.
Some of the clients would almost dismiss me and not bother to get to know me, because they were too busy disclosing information to Robin.
At first it was hurtful to not be noticed, but once it’s put in perspective when applied to this theory, it’s not so bad.
As the months passed I got to know more of the clients, and began to figure out their schedules.
I know who comes on what day with who and when. But that took some time, and so did the conversations.
Just recently have I been able to have conversations on the personal level with some clients.
It’s funny how people treat their conversations; almost like confessions…who else are they going to tell?
Obviously we don’t know their past boyfriends, their mother-in-laws or their homosexual boss, so we are safe.
There’s less risk involved telling a third party, and it gives them feedback from a different perspective.
Self-disclosure is definitely give and take, and when people feel comfortable in their usual environment with the same people week after week, thoughts start becoming chats.
I keep wondering if time really does play a factor in this pattern of self-disclosure, and I think to a certain extent it does.
You are more likely to confide in a familiar face than a complete stranger….and a year ago I was a stranger in my client’s environment.
I also think because it is a salon, social norms are even talked about, what we think is weird, not weird, funny, out of line, you name it and we’ve covered it.
And the stronger that part of the relationship becomes, the closer it gets to the penetration stage. I have seen this happen where people are very willing to release a ton of information all at once, and then just little by little.
Almost as if some of the clients are following the theory word for word.

As for the outcome dealing with the reward/cost analysis, the logic behind benefiting from any relationship is asking, “What does it do for me?”
In my case, as I stated earlier, with the salon there isn’t a huge risk of a personal secret being spilled.
We act as therapy for our clients. They come to us out of their busy little work worlds, and we invite them to come and relax.
When people don’t feel threatened, at risk, or uncomfortable it’s amazing how many layers they are willing to shed.
We pamper them, so in a way they have a feeling of intimacy, and trust because we help them look and feel better about themselves.
In this scenario, I feel the rewards definitely outweigh the cost, because in the end we all just need someone to talk to.

Expectancy Violations Theory

When watching the Grammy Awards show the other night, I started to notice something about Ryan Secrest. He was very personable and energetic while interviewing. However, as he was interviewing people, his microphone would inch closer to their face, and Ryan would inch as well. I remember distinctly John Mayer taking a few steps back when Ryan interrogated John about Jessica Simpson. I started to wonder if it was the subject matter that made John shy away, or maybe it was the Expectancy Violations Theory at work.

Once I noticed that John was not the only one moving further away from Ryan, I started to think about the three core concepts of EVT. All of the relationship factors play a role in this situation. The familiarity of the red carpet interviews, relative status of celebrity and similarities between awards shows and how they are conducted. John and other music artists had formed certain expectations about the evening. The context factor in this situation is apparent, the media and entertainment industry form their own culture. However, what this country sets as cultural norms also applies. In this case, Ryan was too close for comfort in Hollywood and to the average viewer. Furthermore, Ryan has been a host of many shows, and was also on radio. His communicator characteristics are very polished. He is professional, entertaining, and too involved to realize his proximity towards others. The violation valence in these encounters is ambiguous. I feel this is the case because not one celebrity was hostile towards Ryan, and it was an unexpected interaction that they dismissed easily.

Overall, the reward valence was positive. Even though Ryan had proxemic violations, the artists were unsure how to interpret them. I continued to watch as the night progressed, and found something of interest happen. Ryan was holding a microphone, and had also provided one for his celebrity.