USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Need to be 2500 words please. And It’s public communication homework.
Assessment
Assessment item 1: Essay: 2,500 words
Objective(s): b, d, e
Weight: 60%
Due: Week 10
Task: Write an essay on one of the following topics.
Briefly outline a public communication problem (e.g. a real situation or a hypothetical example)
and discuss how the seven traditions of communication research and scholarship examined in
this subject can inform practice, and the describe the perspectives and insights that they each
offer.
1.
Public relations and advertising are often accused of being manipulative, propagandistic and
deceitful. How would you defend PR and/or advertising against such allegations based on
theories and models of practice that you have learned?
2.
Discuss links between the critical and sociocultural traditions of communication research and
scholarship and how these two approaches are quite different to the sociopsychological
tradition. Discuss the theoretical differences and give examples of applications in practice thattradition. Discuss the theoretical differences and give examples of applications in practice that
illustrate your points.
How does the study of language, including semiotics and rhetoric, inform understanding of
public communication such as public relations and/or advertising. Give examples as well as
discussing theoretical knowledge.
4.
Further
information:
In all the above essays you can use examples from your own practice experience or case
studies from Australian or international literature. Also, you are expected to consult wider
sources than the textbook, and you should reference your ideas to reliable academic sources.
1.
Please include a word count at the end of your essay. The word count should EXCLUDE the
references.
2.
If you are also doing ‘Communicating with Publics’ you will be participating in a library visit for a
resource orientation. If you are not doing CWP and would like a library orientation (highly
recommended), please let the subject co-ordinator know. To make organising sources and
referencing easier, get a free copy of the Endnotes referencing software from the library
download site BEFORE you start your essay and the research for it. Endnote will save you
hours of painstaking work and should ensure you have accurate referencing to University
standard: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/information/endnote/download.html. In addition, see the
BELL Reference Guide online to learn the correct referencing style.
3.
Criteria: Evidence of thought and research about the issue;
Quality of argumentation and selection of appropriate material as supporting evidence;
Degree of initiative and originality of thought shown;
Appropriate scholarly referencing using the author/date system;
Clarity of writing style, logical ordering of ideas leading to conclusions or evaluations;
Written expression free of grammatical and typographical errors;
Neat professional presentation with a title page, numbered pages, typed with 1.5 spacing
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS
Theory
Theoretical Assumptions (incl. ontological,
epistemological and axiological)
Paradigms
Models
Methodology
Methods
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Professor of Public Communication
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Uh oh … theory!
Theory =
“An organised set of concepts, explanations and principles of some aspect of human experience” (Littlejohn & Foss 2008, p. 14)
A set of concepts used to define and/or explain some phenomenon (Silverman 2000)
“Theory consists of plausible relationships produced among concepts and sets of concepts (Strauss & Corbin 1994, p. 278)
“Theories are explanations of phenomena” (Balnaves, Donald & Shoesmith 2009, p. 278)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key terms
Concept
Terms and definitions that classify and label variables being studied according to perceived patterns (eg. symmetric communication)
Explanation
The “logical force” behind a theory, answering the question “why?” Can be causal or practical
Principles
The final dimension of theories – guidelines that enable interpretation of an event and aid interpretation and decisions on how to act
Taxonomies
List of categories without explanation of how they relate (taxonomies generally fall short of theory as they lack explanation and principles)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key terms
Ontology
Branch of philosophy that studies the nature of existence
Key questions:
What is truth? Is there ‘one truth’ waiting to be discovered – or multiple truths (i.e. valid perspectives, views, beliefs)?
What is reality? Scientific realism or social constructed – i.e. realist or relativist?
Are humans agentic (pragmatist) or determined by external conditions (determinist)
Is human behaviour mainly traits or states?
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key terms
Epistemology
Branch of philosophy that studies how knowledge is created – how people know what they know
“the nature and status of knowledge” (Silverman 2000)
Key questions asked:
Is knowledge immutable and absolute (universalist) or constructed through perceptions, experiences, etc (relativist)
Can we be ‘objective’ or are we subjective – or intersubjective (sharing subjectivities)?
Can we be independent in our assessments or interdependent?
Does knowledge arise through rationalism, empiricism or constructivism?
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key terms
Axiology
Branch of philosophy that studies values – what values guide or influence thinking and action and the implications of those values
Can we be value free – or are we value-laden (i.e. biased) in various ways?
Do we conduct value-conscious scholarship – or value-free scholarship?
To what extent does the process of inquiry itself affect what is being seen?
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Positivist v Naturalistic/Interpretative Paradigms
Based on Creswell, J. 1994 cited in Frey, et al. 2000, p. 18. (1) Grossberg, et al. 2006, p. 205.
ASSUMPTION KEY QUESTIONS POSITIVIST PARADIGM INTERPRETATIVE PARADIGM
Ontological Assumption What is the nature of reality? Singular (one reality)
One truth
Realist Multiple realities Multiple truths
Relativist
Epistemological Assumption What is the relationship of the researcher to that being researched? (How do we acquire knowledge?) Independent
Objectivist Interdependent
Subjectivist
Constructionist (Constructionism denies any access to reality other than representations)1
Axiological Assumption What is the role of values in the research process? Value-free
Unbiased Value-laden
Biased
Rhetorical Assumption What is the language used? Formal
Impersonal Voice Informal
Personal voice
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Positivist v Naturalistic/Interpretative Paradigms
Based on Creswell, J. 1994 cited in Frey, et al. 2000, p. 18.
ASSUMPTION QUESTION POSITIVIST PARADIGM INTERPRETATIVE PARADIGM
Methodological Assumption What is the process of inquiry or research? Deduction
Search for cause an effect relationships between variables
Static design
Researcher controlled setting
Quantitative methods
Context-free generalisations
Goals of explanation, prediction and control Induction
Holistic understanding of patterns/behaviour
Emergent design
Natural setting
Qualitative methods
Context-bound findings
Goals of understanding and social change
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Types of theory
Nomothetic theory
Seeks universal and general laws
Method is (1) develop questions; (2) form hypotheses; (3) test hypotheses; (4) formulate answers (theory)
Deductive
Rationalist and empirical
Practical theory (ideographic)
Seeks to capture differences and diversity to provide understanding that helps people to weigh up alternatives
Recognises knowledge is created by humans, it is created socially, is historically based, and is value laden
Inductive
Constructionist
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Nomothetic Ideographic/Practical
Objective
Scientific
Empirical
More quantitative
Effectiveness in persuasion
Systematic/logical
Causal/linear
The truth is out there
Knowledge is discovered through observation
Interpretive
Humanist
Contextual
More qualitative
Participation and negotiation
Free human agency
Non-linear, no sequence
Truth lies within – we create our own truths
Knowledge arises out of interaction between knower and known
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Theory and practice?
“There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (Kurt Lewin 1951, p. 169)
“Theory and practice vitally interact, and one renews the other” (Boyer 1990, p. 23)
Theory and practice can and should be integrated, each informing the other
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Three Approaches to Scholarship
Scientific
The ‘natural sciences’
Informed by ‘The Enlightenment’ and Modernism – rationalist, empirical
The “discovered world” – objective ‘truth’ is out there
Socio-scientific
Birth of the social sciences
Uses elements of the scientific approach, but focuses on humans – particularly in a social setting
How they behave in creating, exchanging and interpreting meaning
Humanist
Individual subjectivity, human interpretation
“The discovering person” – ‘truth’ is constructed inside
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Some terms
Paradigm
A framework within which theories are formulated, a theoretical framework (eg. postmodernism, constructionism)
From the Greek word paradeigma meaning a pattern
As well as providing a clearly articulated and accepted framework for understanding reality, paradigms can be confining (Kuhn)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Some terms
Model
Some such as Silverman (2000, p. 77) use ‘model’ in the same sense as paradigm for an “overall framework for looking at reality”
A more common use is in referring to a set of procedures to follow,a mapping of an approach
A practical demonstration or visualisation or a theory or concept
“An abstract representation of a process, a description of its structure or function” (Trenholm 2008, p. 23)
Models are always incomplete because they are simplified representations of complex processes (Trenholm 2008, p 24)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Some terms
Methodology
The overall approach to studying research topics – often used in place of ‘method’ (see below).
“Methodology is the ontological beliefs that give shape to the process of knowing (the science of method)” (Balnaves, Donald & Shoesmith 2009, p. 278)
Usually considered to be quantitative or qualitative, or overall research approaches such as ethnographic
Method
A specific research technique – eg. experiments, surveys, interviews, case studies, observation, etc
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
References
Boyer, E. 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Grossberg, L. Wartella, E. Whitney, D. & Macgregor Wise, J. 2006, Media Making: Mass Media in a Popular Culture, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Frey, L. Botan, C. & Kreps, G. 2000, Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Lewin, K. 1951, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, D. Cartwright (ed.), Harper & Row, New York.
Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. 2008, Theories of Human Communication, 9th edn, Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Silverman, D. 2000, Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994, ‘Grounded theory methodology: An overview’ in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 262-72.
25/02/201
3
1
Foundations of Communication
1. Introduction: Worldviews, paradigms and
communication theories
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Professor of Public
Communication
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
57022
Foundations of Communication
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Housekeeping
UTS email & UTS Online – access, check regularly
Subject Outline and lecture notes online
Library visit/demo
‘Communicating with Publics’ Tues 5 March 7.30 pm
To attend e-mail Mai Hansford mai.hansford@uts.edu.au
Referencing style = UTS Harvard. See online
reference guide at UTS Library
http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/help/referencing/harvard-uts-
referencing-guide/more-information
Text book reading – see front table in text
Postgrad welcome drinks – Week 2, 6 March,
7–7.45 pm @ Level 5, Bldg 10 lounge over bridge
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/20
13
2
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
57022 – Managing Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
A roadmap for this subject
Look at what is communication … and how it
works among humans
Review major theories, models, approaches
and views on communication
Look at the application of models and
approaches to professional practice
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Uh oh … theory!
Theory
“An organised set of concepts, explanations and
principles of some aspect of human experience”
(Chaffee cited in Littlejohn & Foss 2008, p. 14)
A set of concepts used to define and/or explain
some phenomenon (Silverman 2000)
“Theory consists of plausible relationships produced
among concepts and sets of concepts (Strauss &
Corbin 1994, p. 278)
In everyday terms …
Best practice knowledge
What others have learned before you and elsewhere
The labels v the concepts, explanations, principles
25/02/2013
3
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Three key elements of theory
Concept
Terms and definitions that classify and label variables
being studied according to perceived patterns (eg.
symmetric communication)
Explanation
The “logical force” behind a theory, answering the
question “why?” Can be causal or practical
Principles
The final dimension of theories – guidelines that
enable interpretation of an event and aid interpretation
and decisions on how to act
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Postmodern and multidisciplinary
The ‘construction’ of knowledge
• No single ‘truth’ – unstable, ongoing, contested, slippery
Deconstruction of knowledge
• QUESTION, PROBLEMATISE, ARGUE
See ‘Mud Wrestling 1’
Introductory paper on studying in arts and social
sciences and a culture of inquiry
Approach to this subject
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
4
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Three Approaches to Scholarship
Scientific
Used in the ‘natural sciences’ (astronomy, physics,
chemistry, etc)
Rationalist, empirical
The “discovered world” – objective ‘truth’ is out there
Socio-scientific (behaviourist)
Birth of the social sciences (psychology, sociology,
anthropology)
Uses empirical scientific approach focused on
understanding humans in a social setting
Humanist
Individual subjectivity, human interpretation
“The discovering person” – ‘truth’ is constructed inside
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Which is best?
Scientific? Socio-scientific? Humanist?
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
5
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Theory and practice?
“There is nothing so practical as a good theory”
(Kurt Lewin 1951, p. 169)
“Theory and practice vitally interact, and one
renews the other” (Boyer 1990, p. 23)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication
Dance (1970) reviewed 95 definitions of
communication
Dance & Larson (1976) literature survey found
126 definitions of communication
Anderson (1996) identified 249 distinct
communication theories
Communication studied in mathematics, engineering,
literature, sociology, psychology, cultural studies
Bryant & Miron (2004) analysed 1,806 mass
communication journals (1956-2000) – found
1,393 references to 604 theories related to
communication
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
6
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication?
Interpersonal
Small group
Organisational
Corporate
Business
Internal
Media
Public
Advertising
Public relations
Organisational
What is common?
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication?
It’s human communication – between
people
We are not talking about animal communication,
extra-terrestrial communication, telecommunications, etc
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
7
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Human communication
“Of all things, communication is most wonderful”
(Dewey 1939, p. 385)
“Society exists not only by transmission, by
communication, but it may fairly be said to exist
in transmission, in communication” (Dewey 1916,
p. 5)
“One cannot not communicate” (Watzlawick, Beavin &
Jackson 1967, p. 48)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Defining communication?
From electronics – transmitting messages?
From etymology (language roots)
Latin noun communis – common, community
Latin verb communicare – to create, build
Nine definitions cited by Trenholm (2008, p. 20)
Four key definitions cited by Mohan, McGregor,
Saunders & Archee (2008, p. 5)
Transmission of messages
Social interaction through messages
Sharing of meaning through information, ideas and
feelings
Reciprocal creation of meaning in a context
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
8
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Examples of definitions
Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond (2008, p. 3):
“The process by which one person stimulates
meaning in the mind(s) of another person (or
persons) through verbal and nonverbal messages”.
TRANSMISSIONAL
Alberts, Nakayama & Martin (2007, p. 21):
“A transactional process in which people generate
meaning through the exchange of verbal and non-
verbal messages in specific contexts, influenced by
individual and societal forces and embedded in
culture”
TRANSACTIONAL
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Examples of definitions
James W. Carey (1989, 2009, p. 19)
“Communication is a symbolic process whereby
reality is produced, maintained, repaired and
transformed”
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
9
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Defining communication
“A single definition has proved impossible and
may not be very fruitful”
(Littlejohn & Foss 2008, p. 3)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Key elements of communication
Generating meaning (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin
2007)
Exchanging and sharing meanings
Communicating is about making, negotiating
and sharing meanings
‘Sharing/negotiating meanings’ v agreement?
Uses symbols / is symbolic
Embedded and framed within social
interaction and culture
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
10
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication elements
Transactional, symbolic, interpretive,
contextual processes in which people create, share
and negotiate meanings (Lustig & Koester 1993)
Transactional
Interactions, feedback, negotiation
Symbolic
Written or spoken language, images, texts, non-verbal
Interpretive
Cognition, reflection, critical analysis
Contextual
Historical
Social
Cultural
Economic
Political
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication components
Participants
Messages
Channels (media)
Noise
Feedback
Setting
(Alberts, Nakayama & Martin 2007, pp. 13-14)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
11
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Our approach to communication
Look at a several perspectives and approaches
Including various transactional, symbolic, interpretive
and contextual factors
Then communication practices drawing on those
approaches
“Seven traditions” of communication –
approaches, theoretical groupings (Robert Craig
1999; Craig & Muller 2007; Littlejohn & Foss 2008)
Shaped by worldviews and discourses (metanarratives)
• Modernism
• Psychology and sociology
• Cultural studies
• Postmodernism
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Subject model
Communication practices (writing, journalism, advertising, etc)
Worldviews and
metatheories (eg.
poststructuralism,
political economy,
social constructivism)
Communication
approaches/
traditions
Worldviews and
metatheories
(eg. modernism,
science)
Worldviews and
metatheories
(eg. postmodernism,
social science – eg.
psychology)
Communication
approaches /
traditions
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
12
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Our approach to communication
Our approach is multidisciplinary and
transtheoretical
Seven traditions draw on
Rhetoric / rhetorical communication
Systems theory/cybernetics
Phenomenology (experience and interpretation)
Psychology and social psychology
Semiotics – symbols and signs including language
Sociology and cultural studies
Critical perspectives
Then applied to sub-disciplines such as
Groups, organisations, public, media, etc
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Rationale for this approach
Communication = “a family of interrelated
concepts” (Dance & Larson 1972, pp. 1-16; Trenholm
2008, p. 23)
Communication = a field (not one thing)
Understand assumptions and beliefs that
underlie what we do
Gives you a 360 degree view of communication
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
13
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Other approaches to communication
Two ‘approaches’ (Trenholm 2008, p. 13)
Rhetorical tradition (humanist)
“More scientific approach” (i.e. social science)
Two ‘traditions’ (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin 2007,
pp. 37-44)
Rhetorical tradition (the art of speaking)
Behaviourist tradition (communication as science)
Some call the two broad approaches
Humanist (rhetorical)
Behaviourist (social science)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Models of communication
Two models (Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond 2008, pp.
16-18)
Rhetorical communication model
Interpersonal communication model
Two models (Mohan, et al 2009, p. 25)
Transmission model
Transaction model (negotiated in social interaction)
Two models (James Carey 1989, 2009, p. 19)
Transmission
Ritual (shared experiences, onoing community practices)
Two models (Grossberg, et al 2006, pp. 18-27)
Transmission model
Cultural model (embedded in social interaction and culture)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
14
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Models of communication
Three models (Beebe, Beebe & Ivy 2009, pp. 12-18)
Action
Interaction
Transaction
Three traditional models of communication
(Alberts, Nakayama & Martin 2007, pp. 14-17)
Linear (transmissional)
Interactive (transmissional + feedback and
psychological – field of experience, education attitudes,
etc)
Transactional (interactive, ongoing, negotiating
meaning)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Problematising communication
Diversity of views – need to synthesise
Some early and simpler approaches and models
pay little if any attention to
Context
Psychology – traits, predispositions, attitudes, etc of
senders and receivers of messages
Social influences
Political influences
Cultural influences?
Power
Language and symbols – eg. visual communication
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
15
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Modern views of communication
Four contemporary approaches (Alberts,
Nakayama & Martin 2007, pp. 47-57)
Social science (behaviourist)
Interpretive (humanist)
Critical (examines power, structures)
Postmodern (cultural studies, relativism)
Four perspectives/models (Trenholm 2008)
Message transmission (psychological)
World building (social constructionism)
Patterned interaction (pragmatism, systems)
Cultural studies (relativism, culture, etc)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O Seven traditions/approaches explored in
this subject …
Rhetorical – persuasion, messages and ideas
Systems/cybernetic – information transmission
including feedback loops, noise, networks
Phenomenological – experience, perception and
interpretation
Sociopsychological – individual cognition,
behaviour and information processing
Semiotic – signs and symbols making meaning
Sociocultural – social interaction, the social
construction of reality and cultural context
Critical – power, domination, hegemony
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
16
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication management
Relevant to:
Advertising
Public relations
Corporate communication
Marketing communication
Internal communication
Community relations, etc
Also includes sub-disciplines such as issues and
crisis communication, brand, reputation and
stakeholder relationships
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
References
Alberts, J. Nakayama, T. & Martin, J. 2007, Human Communication in
Society, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Anderson, J. 1996, Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations,
Guildford Press, New York.
Beebe, S, Beebe, S,& Ivy, D. 2009, Communication Principles for a Lifetime,
vol. 1, Principles of Communication, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Boyer, E. 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate,
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Bryant, J. & Miron, D. 2004, ‘Theory and research in mass communication’,
Journal of Communication, 54, pp. 662-704.
Carey, J. 2009, Communication as Culture, Routledge, New York (Original
work published 1989)
Craig, R. 1999, ‘Communication theory as a field’, Communication Theory,
9, 119-61.
Craig, R. & Muller, H. (eds) 2007, Theorising Communication: Readings
Across Traditions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dance, F. 1970, ‘The concept of communication’, Journal of
Communication, 230, pp. 201-10.
Dance, F. & Larson, C. 1972, Speech Communication: Concepts and
Behaviour, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
25/02/2013
17
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
References
Dance, F. & Larson C. 1976, The Functions of Human Communication: A
Theoretical Approach, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Dewey, J. 1916, Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New York.
Dewey, J. 1939, Intelligence in the Modern World (collected works), Modern
Library, New York.
Frey, L. Botan, C. & Kreps, G. 2000, Investigating Communication: An
Introduction to Research Methods, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Grossberg, L, Wartella, E, Whitney, D, & Wise, J. 2006, Media Making: Mass
Media in a Popular Culture, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lewin, K. 1951, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers,
D. Cartwright (ed.), Harper & Row, New York.
Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. 2008, Theories of Human Communication, 9th edn,
Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Lustig, M. & Koester, J. 1993, Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal
Communication Across Culture, Harper Collins, New York.
Mohan, T. McGregor, H. Saunders, S. & Archee, R. 2008, Communicating as
Professionals, 2nd edn, Cengage Learning Australia, South Melbourne.
Severin, J. & Tankard, J. 2001, Communication Theories: Origins, Methods,
and Uses in the Mass Media, Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
Silverman, D. 2000, Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
References
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994, ‘Grounding theory methodology: An
overview’, in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 273-85.
Trenholm, S. 2008, Thinking Through Communication: An Introduction to
the Study of Human Communication, 5th edn, Pearson Education, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Watzlawick, P. Beavin, J. & Jackson, D. 2008, ‘Some tentative axioms of
communication’ in C. Mortensen (ed.), Communication Theory , 2nd edn,
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 74-85. (Original work
published 1967)
Wrench, J. McCroskey, J. & Richmond, V. 2008, Human Communication in
Everyday Life, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/201
2
1
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Foundations of Communication
3. Psychology and sociopsychology approachesS
:
T
H
Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Professor of Public Communication
U
T
57022
Foundations of Communication
Recap from Week 2
Rhetoric was one of the first traditions of
communication. Starting in ancient Greece,
evolved to include contemporary use
D
O
evolved to include contemporary use
Focus on the rhetor as skilled in persuasion
Little focus on audiences, society, culture, etc
Growth of science saw a ‘scientific’ view of
human communication – Shannon & Weaver’s
information model and growth of cybernetics
Brought a disciplined view to communication
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
g p
Evolved to embrace bio and neuro systems and networks,
some elements of psychology and social networks
But largely ignores human cognition and socio-cultural
influences
3/8/20
12
2
Traditions of Communication Theory
Rhetorical – the art of speaking and persuasion
Systems/cybernetic – information transmission
including feedback loops noise networks
D
O
including feedback loops, noise, networks
Sociopsychological – individual cognition,
behaviour and information processing
Semiotic – signs and symbols making meaning
Phenomenological – experience interpreted
Sociocultural – social interaction, context, the
social construction of reality
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D social construction of reality
Critical – power, domination, hegemony
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Video: Chris Cunningham. Music: Bjork
D
O
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
3
Psychology
Focus on the individual – largely internal
Sees the individual human mind as the locus for
processing and understanding information
D
O
processing and understanding information
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Psychology
A ‘social science’
Grounded in Modernism, ‘scientific approach’
Freud (psychoanalysis) and Freudian thought
D
O
Freud (psychoanalysis) and Freudian thought
The unconscious
Instinctual impulses
Also draws on studies of
Human needs (Maslow 1943, 1954)
Experiments in stimulus-response
B li f h bj i i i l h
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Belief that objective empirical research can
understand and even predict human behaviour
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
4
Social psychology
“Study of behaviour in social contexts” (Craig &
Muller 2007, p. 313)
Origin – experimental social psychology in early
D
O
Origin – experimental social psychology in early
20th century
Aim to develop a “science of communication”
Two branches or ‘schools’ of thought
Psychological – individual standpoint
Sociological – society standpoint
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Key focus of sociopsychology
Information processing
Learning and
D
O
Persuasion for
Attitude change and
Behavioural effects
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
5
Communication relevance
Extensively applied in advertising
Behavioural psychologist, J. B. Watson, appointed VP
of J. Walter Thompson in the US in 1922
D
O
JWT employed two psychologists in Australia in 192
7
Sociopsychological approaches to analysing and
segmenting audiences influenced advertising for the
next 75 years (Balnaves, Donald & Shoesmith 2009,
p. 276).
Foundation of many government education
campaigns (eg. health)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Used by social scientists concerned about media
effects
Violence
Pornography
Education
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Sociopsychological tradition
Three main branches:
1 B h i l ti li t l b h
D
O
1. Behavioural – stimuli response to learn, behave
2. Cognitive – how humans process information, think
3. Biological – brain function, neurochemistry,
psychobiology
(Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (p. 43)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
(Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (p. 43)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
6
Key theories of sociopsychology
Trait theory – psychological predispositions
Trait factor models
Genetic predisposition
D
O
Genetic predisposition
Extraversion, neuroticism
Cognition and information processing
Attribution Theory (Fritz Heider)
Social Judgement Theory (Muzafer Sherif)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)
Elaboration Likelihood Theory (Petty & Cacioppo)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Elaboration Likelihood Theory (Petty & Cacioppo)
Part II, Chapter 4
Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (pp. 66-74)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Core concepts
Schema / schemata (pl.)
Mental schemata – categories for grouping
information mental templates
D
O
information, mental templates
(Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond 2008, p. 130-3)
Relational schemata (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 199)
Constructs – constructivism (Jesse Delia 1982)
Humans construct conceptual categories and ‘ways of
seeing’
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
7
ConstructIVISM ConstructIONISM
Often used interchangeably and seen by some as the same.
But others cite some distinct differences.
Psychological theory of
k l d
Sociological theory of
k l d
D
O
knowledge knowledge
Individual meaning making in
a social context
Humans construct ‘reality’
through social interaction
Social Construction of Reality
(Peter Berger & Thomas Luckmann
1966)
Internal constructs to learn
and understand (categorising)
External world/realities are
socially constructed
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Applied largely to education and
learning – two streams:
Jean Piaget’s constructivist learning
Seymour Papert’s constructionist
learning?
Gender, family, work ethic, etc
are social constructions
Links to phenomenology (interpretation)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Attribution theory
Why we and others do things
Heider saw human behaviour attributed to a
range of factors and “perceptual styles”:
D
O
range of factors and “perceptual styles”:
Situational
Personal effects / influence
Ability
Effort
Desire
Sentiment (feeling like it)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
( g )
Belonging
Obligation
Permission
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
8
Attribution theory
We make quick personal judgements on
causes of behaviour:
“I couldn’t help it” (situational)
D
O
I couldn t help it (situational)
“He/she made me do it” (influence)
“I felt I had to” (obligation, influence)
“It seemed to be the thing to do” (obligation)
“I just wanted to fit in – I went along” (belonging)
“I can’t do that” (permission)
“I’m not good at that” (ability)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
“I really wanted to” (desire)
“I did my best” (effort, ability)
Not always conscious or logical
“I don’t know why I did that.”
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Attribution theory
In judging others – he/she …
Is just plain lazy
Doesn’t care
D
O
Doesn t care
It’s easy for her/him
They were just lucky
In judging communication …
I’m a good driver
I can hold my drink
I’m not overweight – I’m just big-boned
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
ot o e e g t just b g bo ed
I can’t help my weight – it’s my glands
The journalist is just biased
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
9
Fundamental attribution error
Type of
Situation
Considering
ourselves
Considering
others
D
O
Positive outcome Attribute to
personal qualities
Attribute to
situation /
circumstances
Negative outcome Attribute to
situation/
circumstances
Attribute to
personal qualitities
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Attribution theory
Initial judgements (attributed causes) are often
Illogical
Biased
D
O
Biased
Don’t weigh all factors
Follow schemata
Hard to dislodge
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
10
Social judgement theory
How we make judgements about what we hear
and don’t experience personally (Sherif 1961)
Use reference points something you know to
D
O
Use reference points, something you know to
be true – Sherif calls them “anchors”
Trusted sources
Track record
Prior experiences
Are brands ‘anchors’?
Also ego involvement is key does it affect me
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Also ego involvement is key – does it affect me
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger 1957)
“The distressing mental state in which people find
themselves doing things which don’t fit with what they
D
O
themselves doing things which don t fit with what they
know, or having opinions that don’t fit with other
opinions they hold”
A basic need is to avoid dissonance – we strive
for consonance, consistency, congruity
Communication theories based on this:
Heider’s Balance Theory (1946)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
y ( )
Newcomb’s Symmetry Model (1953)
Osgood’s Congruity Theory (1957)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
11
Cognitive dissonance
Joseph Klapper (1960) found reinforcement of
existing attitudes the most common outcome of
communication
D
O
communication
Examples of dissonance
Give up smoking v put on weight
Post-decision dissonance after ‘close call’ decisions
or major purchases (eg. new house, car, job)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Dealing with cognitive dissonance
Humans always seek consonance
When confronted with dissonance, humans:
Ch ttit d b h i t t h t
D
O
Change attitude or behaviour to match new contrary
information, OR
Try to ignore new information (flight)
Interpret new information to support existing attitudes
or behaviour (fight)
Cognitive dissonance can be a:
Blockage to communication OR
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Blockage to communication, OR
A technique to use (e.g. to jolt others into change)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
12
Elaboration Likelihood Theory
Petty and Cacioppo (1986) saw two routes of
information processing
Central route (active information processing/cognition)
D
O
( p g g )
Peripheral route (passive)
Central processing
“the extent to which a person carefully thinks about
issue-relevant information” – i.e. elaborately/in detail
Peripheral processing
Simple instinctive thinking based on schemata,
heuristics and other mental shortcuts
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D heuristics and other mental shortcuts
Elaboration likelihood = the probability that
someone will evaluate and process information
elaborately (thinking deeply about it)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Heuristics – mental shortcuts
Credibility/authority (e.g. source credibility)
Liking
Att ti l f i d t
D
O
Attractive people, friends, etc
Consensus – trust in the majority
“Everyone’s says … doing … ”
Habit
Voting party ticket
Astrology!
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
st o ogy
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
13
Heuristic Systematic Theory
Also a two-route cognitive processing approach
Systematic analytical consideration, OR
Heuristic processing relying on heuristics
D
O
Heuristic processing relying on heuristics
Key heuristics
Source credibility
Liking
Consensus
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Elaboration Likelihood Theory
D
O
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
14
Sociopsychology and messages
Action-assembly theory
How we organise knowledge to form messages
Strategy choice models
D
O
Strategy choice models
Message design models
Semantic meaning theory
Part II, Chapter 5
Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (pp. 119-132)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Sociopsychology and conversations
Managing uncertainty and anxiety
Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger et al.)
Anxiety uncertainty management
D
O
Anxiety-uncertainty management
Accommodation and adaption
Accommodation theory
Interaction-adaption theory
Expectancy –violations theory
Interpersonal deception theory
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Part II, Chapter 6
Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (pp. 149-159)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
15
Information processing
W. J. McGuire (1984) developed a multi-
stepped model of communication
Six stages initially
D
O
Six stages initially
Presentation Attention Comprehension Acceptance Retention Change/Action
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
McGuire’s 13 stages of communication
Exposure
Attention
Liking
D
O
Comprehension
Cognition
Acquiring skills/knowledge
Attitude change
Storing information (retention)
Retrieving information
Deciding to act in accordance with information
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Deciding to act in accordance with information
Action / behaviour
Cognitive integration of behaviour
Encouraging others to behave similarly (McGuire 2001)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
16
Sociopsychological approach
Framed by both early scientific thinking and
emerging ‘social sciences’
Modernism late 19th and early 20th century
D
O
Modernism – late 19th and early 20th century
Continuation of the Enlightenment project
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Problematising this approach?
Usefully focuses on human traits,
predispositions, cognitive processes, etc
Reveals hidden internal factors influencing
D
O
Reveals hidden internal factors influencing
communication
But largely ignores:
The persuasive power of rhetoric through “artful
symbolism”, emotion, credibility, etc
Language and signs (text and visual)
Experience (other than briefly looking at how past
experience shapes attitudes)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D experience shapes attitudes)
Structural issues – eg. institutions, systems of power
Broader social and cultural influences
• “Excessive individualism, inattention to macro-social
forces (Craig & Muller 2007, p. 84)
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
17
Problematising this approach
Early psychology and social psychology
approaches accused of “mechanistic
determinism” – e.g. B. F. Skinner
D
O
g
Saw the human mind as a machine
“Like behaviourists, most cognitive
psychologists believe that the fundamental laws
of the physical world determine human
behaviour completely” (Barsalou 1992)
Rely on ‘scientific’ largely positivist research
Bargh (1997) updated mechanistic determinism
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Bargh (1997) updated mechanistic determinism
saying that social psychology included
situational factors – but still saw ‘automatic’
processes governing human thinking
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
TV commercial – approach?
3/8/2012
18
TV commercial – approach?
References
Balnaves, M. Donald, S. & Shoesmith, B. 2009, Media Theories and
Approaches: A Global Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
Bargh, J. 1997, ‘The automaticity of everyday life’, in R. Wyer (ed.),
Advances in Social Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1-61.
D
O
Barsalou, L. 1992, Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive
Scientists, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Chaiken, S. Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. 1989, ‘Heuristic and systematic
information within the beyond the persuasion context’, in J. Uleman & J.
Bargh (eds), Unintended Thought, Guildford Press, New York, pp. 212-
52.
Craig, R. & Muller, H. (eds) 2007, Theorising Communication: Readings
Across Traditions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Delia, J. O’Keefe, B. & O’Keefe, D. 1982,’’The constructivist approach to
communication’, in F. Dance (ed.), Human Communication Theory:
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
communication , in F. Dance (ed.), Human Communication Theory:
Comparative Essays, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 147-91.
Festinger, L. 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University
Press, Standford, CA.
Heider, F. 1946, xxx
Klapper, J. 1960, The Effects of Mass Communication, Free Press, New
York.
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
3/8/2012
19
References
Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. 2008, Theories of Human Communciation (9th edn),
Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Maslow, A. 1943, ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review
50(4), pp. 370-96.
Maslow A 1954 Motivation and Personality Harper New York
D
O
Maslow, A. 1954, Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York.
McGuire, W. 1984, ‘Attitudes and attitude change’, in G. Lindzey, L. Gardner
& E. Aronson, The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol II, 3rd edn,
Random House, New York.
McGuire, W. 2001. ‘Input and output variables currently promising for
constructing persuasive communications’, in R. Rice & C. Atkin (eds),
Public communication campaigns, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA pp.
22-48.
Petty, R. & Cacioppo, J. 1986, Communication and Persuasion: Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change Springer-Verlag New York
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer Verlag, New York.
Severin, J. & Tankard, J. 2001, Communication Theories: Origins, Methods,
and Uses in the Mass Media, Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
Wrench, J. McCroskey, J. & Richmond, V. 2008, Human Communication in
Everyday Life, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
1
Mai Hansford 2013
!
1
!
the semiotic
landscape!
Mai Hansford 2013! 2!
Two domains of meaning:
!
!
• the world itself!
!
• the languages people use to
describe it (their perceptions,
responses and actions)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 3!
We donʼt find meaning, we make it!
!
polysemy (has been the undoing of
structural semiotics)!
!
but . . . generally, we are not entirely
free to make any meaning we want!
!
Why study semiotics?!
“These institutions and processes
[ public communication practices]
are among the most important
large-scale creators and
managers of what can be
analysed as the semiotic
facilitation or obfuscation of
reality.” (Mackey 2011 p. 115)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 4!
“Campaign message designers
are, in effect, creating structures
of meanings within a message,
providing an ideology within the
message to shape desire for the
product” (Moffitt 2011, p. 25)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 5! Mai Hansford 2013! 6!
!
Semiotics/semiology!
!
. . . the life of signs within society!
2
Mai Hansford 2013! 7!
“meaning is based on relationships”! !
! ! (Berger 2000, p. 43)!
!
!
signs are anything that can be made to
“stand for” something else!
!
Semiotic resources: “the actions and
artefacts we use to communicate” !
! ! ! ! (van Leeuwen 2005, p. 3)!
“semiotics provides a set of tools
for identifying the signs of!
any text, or in other words, for
finding the cultural meanings of
one item or several words or
visuals used together” (Moffitt 2011, p.
24)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 8!
Mai Hansford 2013! 9!
Semiotic field:!
zoology!
olfactory signs!
tactile communication!
paralinguistics!
medicine!
kinesics and proxemics!
musical codes!
formalised languages!
written languages!
natural languages!
visual communication!
systems of objects!
plot structures!
text theory!
cultural codes!
aesthetic texts!
mass communication!
rhetoric!
anthropology !
psychoanalysis !
! ! (Eco 1972)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 10!
semiologists look at signs as “things
in themselves” and as “signs” or
indicators of other things/notions!
!
however, these things or notions are
subject to interpretation and debate!!
Mai Hansford 2013! 11!
“. . . semiological analysis
presupposes a thorough
knowledge of the originating
culture and of the particular
genre at issue” !
! ! ! (McQuail 2005, p. 349)!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 12!
The social nature of
meaning systems: !
• “share” common codes!
!
• involve emotional and affective relations!
!
!Polysemy challenges assumption of
necessary correspondence!
!
!we are all readers, producers and
reproducers of signs or semiotic
resources!
!
!Hallʼs distinct processes!
3
Mai Hansford 2013! 13!
Questions that arise:!
1. What is the text to be
interpreted?!
!isolating a single text for analysis
is problematic!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 14!
every text is an intertext !
! ! ! !(Kristeva 1966, 1980)!
!
texts – and signs – are encountered in
the context of greater signifying systems!
! ! ! ! (Long & Wall 2009)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 15!
2. !What kinds of things do people
!expect a text to provide or do?!
!Commonly: !
!
• meaning!
!questions about the political and
!social organisation or
representation of reality!
!
and !
!
• models for behaviour!
Mai Hansford 2013! 16!
3. !How does a text “produce” the
particular meaning we assume
it has?!
!
!Semiotics examines the process
of meaning-making!
!
!Relative power!
Mai Hansford 2013! 17!
the “how” question . . .!
Semiotics . . . “is a way of
analysing meanings by looking at
the signs . . . which communicate
meaning” ! ! ! (Bignell 2002, p. 1)!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 18!
Semiotic dimensions:!
Syntactics: grammatical rules!
!
Semantics: aspects of meaning
expressed in a language!
!
Pragmatics: relation of signs to
interpreters!
4
Cobley, P. (ed.) 1996, The communication theory reader,
Routledge, London & New York!
Part I: Signification!
Theories of the sign!
Ferdinand de Saussure The object of linguistics!
Charles Sanders Peirce A guess at the riddle!
!
The sign in use!
Émile Benveniste The nature of the linguistic sign!
V.N. Vološinov Toward a Marxist philosophy of language!
M.A.K. Halliday ʻIntroductionʼ Language as social semiotic: the social
interpretation of language and meaning!
!
Part II: ʻMeaning”: Linguistic and visual!
Linguistic ʻmeaningʼ!
Ferdinand de Saussure Linguistic value!
Steven Cohan & Linda M. Shires Theorizing language!
!
Visual ʻmeaningʼ!
Roland Barthes Denotation and connotation!
Roland Barthes The photographic message!
Umberto Eco How culture conditions the colours we see!
Gunther Kress & Theo van Leeuwen Reading images!
Mai Hansford 2013! 19!
Part III: The sign in post-structuralism!
Signifiers and subjects!
Jacques Lacan The agency of the letter in the unconscious!
Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen Liguisteries!
!
The play of différance!
Jacques Derrida Semiology and grammatology: interview with Julia Kristeva!
Brian Torode Textuality, sexuality, economy!
!
Sign users and speech acts!
Saying and doing!
J.L Austin Performatives and constatives!
John Searle What is a speech act?!
!
Person, process and practice!
Émile Benveniste The nature of pronouns!
Roman Jakobson Shifters and verbal categories!
Gunther Kress Social processes and linguistic change: time and history in
language!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 20!
Part V: The inscription of the audience in the message!
Cinematic inscription!
Émile Benveniste Relationships of person in the verb!
Nick Browne The spectator-in-the-text: the rhetoric of Stagecoach!
Stephen Heath Narrative space!
!
Bodies, subjects and social context!
M.A.K. Halliday Language as social semiotic!
Alan Luke The body literate: discourse and inscription in early literacy training!
Judith Williamson . . . But I know what I like: the function of ʻartʼ in advertising!
!
Part VI: Readers and reading!
Interpretation, ideation and the reading process!
Stanley Fish Why no oneʼs afraid of Wolfgang Iser!
Wolfgang Iser Talk like whales: a reply to Stanley Fish!
!
The study of readersʼ meanings!
Jerry Palmer The act of reading and the reader!
Janice A. Radway Reading the romance!
Ien Ang Dallas between reality and fiction!
!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 21!
The diversity of the field!
Mai Hansford 2013! 22!
We could examine. . .
• Theories of the sign
• The sign in use
• Visual and linguistic ‘meaning’
• The sign in post-structuralism
• Sign users and speech acts
• Readers/interpreters of signs and the
process of interpreting
• The positioning or inscription of the
‘reader’ in the text
Mai Hansford 2013! 23!
Four important
foundational approaches!
1. de Saussure!
2. Peirce!
3. Eco!
4. Barthes!
Mai Hansford 2013! 24!
Structuralist! Poststructuralist! Postmodernist!
De Saussure! Nietzsche! Lyotard!
Levi-Strauss! Derrida! Baudrillard!
Peirce! Lacan! Gottdeiner!
Foucault!
Barthes!
Eco!
Poster!
Social semiotics! Visual semiotics!
5
Mai Hansford 2013! 25!
1. de Saussure!
Linguist!
!
reconceived linguistics along semiotic
lines!
!
“Language is a system of signs that
express ideas” ! ! !
! ! ! ! (Silverman 1983, p. 4)!
!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 26!
Saussure predicted that semiotic
principles would be applied to all
aspects of culture!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 27! Mai Hansford 2013! 28!
Terms!
• Sign!
!“anything taken by social convention to
represent something else” (McQuail 1987, p. 186)!
!
• Signifier!
!the physical properties or aspects of a sign
that lead them to be perceived in some way!
!
• Signified!
!the idea or mental concept conjured up by
our perception of the signifier!
!
• Signification!
!the relationship between these three
elements in the process of meaning-making!
Mai Hansford 2013! 29!
de Saussure claims relationship
between the signifier and signified
is arbitrary:!
!
that is . . .!
!
we have to be taught the meaning
of signs (like a language)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 30!
Texts generate meanings in
two ways:!
1. by the order in which events happen
(the syntagmatic structure) !
!and !
2. by the hidden oppositions found in
the text (the paradigmatic
structure) !
6
Mai Hansford 2013! 31!
2. Charles Peirce!
Philosopher!
!
Two interlocking triads:!
!
1. Sign-interpretant-object!
2. Icon-index-symbol!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 32!
Peirceʼs icon/index/symbol trichotomy!
Sign Icon Index Symbol
Signify by: !Resemblance !Causal !Convention!
! !connection!
!
Examples: !Photos or images !Smoke/fire !Words!
!
!Statues of !Symptom/ !Gestures!
!well-known figures !disease!
! !(red spots/!
! !measles)!
!
!Photo of!
!Rudd!
!
Process: !Can see !Can figure !Must learn!
Mai Hansford 2013! 33! Mai Hansford 2013! 34!
3. Eco!
Eco developed a theory of semiotics from
Peirce !
!
He investigated!
!codes or rules about signification!
!how we produce and reproduce signs!
!
Back and forth between stability in coding
structure and variations in cultural practices!
Elements that go together to create a
system of representation (signs➔codes)!
1. !conditions or objects
in the world!
!
2. signs !
!
3. a repertoire of
responses !
!
4. a set of
correspondence rules
Mai Hansford 2013! 35! Mai Hansford 2013! 36!
Different ways we use signs!
1. Thereʼs an existing code people
recognise eg. symptoms for an illness !
2. Use the object itself eg. hold up
empty bottle to show someone you want
another!
3. Arbitrary signs in combination
eg. language!
4. New ways to put things together
to create a new “code”
eg. conceptual or symbolic art!
(adapted from Eco, 1972)!
7
Mai Hansford 2013! 37!
“Not only is meaning
cultural, but cultures are
semiotic” !
(Littlejohn 1996, p. 55)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 38!
4. Roland Barthes!
applied semiotics to cultural practices !
!
concerned with the ways signs
worked to reinforce the dominant
values of the culture !
!
ideology!
Mai Hansford 2013! 39!
embeddedness of signs in
cultural practice!
!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 40!
“second-order” signifying
systems !
Mai Hansford 2013! 41!
Denotation =
!first order signification
Connotation =
!second order signification!
(adapted from Griffin 2003, p. 359)
D
EN
O
T
A
T
IV
E
SY
ST
EM
C
O
N
N
O
T
A
T
IV
E SY
ST
EM
Mai Hansford 2013! 42!
8
Mai Hansford 2013! 43!
“Barthesʼs notion of culture is not
genuinely collective, but riven with
contradictions” (Silverman 1983, p. 30)!
!
myth-making!
!
These contradictions are covered
over and smoothed out by ideology
or myth, which creates the world in
the image of the dominant class!
Mai Hansford 2013! 44!
signs and their place in
hegemonic practices!
Mai Hansford 2013! 45!
Further developments!
• Social semiotics !
! !eg. Hodge & Kress!
• Postmodern semiotics !
! !eg. Baudrillard (simulacra)!
• Visual semiotics !
! !eg. van Leeuwen!
Mai Hansford 2013! 46!
Theoretical movement of the sign:
!
ranging from . . .!
• denotation to connotation !
• a specific signified to one that
refers to beyond itself!
• references that are “indexical” or
“iconic” relationships (Peirce) to
“ideological” or “mythic” (Barthes)!
• structure to subjectivity!
!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 47!
Social semiotics!
Perhaps the closest “fit” for us in our
orientation to communication!
!
Advantages:!
• makes clear the importance of the
reader’s meaning-making processes!
!
• situates the reader and the text in their
social/cultural contexts!
Mai Hansford 2013! 48!
When you create texts, keep
in mind that . . .!
1. texts can engender multiple
levels of potential meanings!
!they constitute a semiotic
resource for the “reader”!
9
Mai Hansford 2013! 49!
2. texts are made meaningful
through a process of audience
signification!
!
Mai Hansford 2013! 50!
3. “meaning” of the text is an
interaction of textual and extra-
textual factors, including the
readerʼs resources!
!
!“producers of media texts aim to
ensure that polysemia is kept to a
minimum” (Long & Wall 2009, p. 47)!
!
