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.
Monday, April 30, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, April 20, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 2, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)