Stuart Hall’s Encoding-Decoding Model (Reception Theory) (Under

cybernatic tradition)

In 1973, the cultural theorist and political activist, Stuart Hall, presented his model of
communication in his essay “Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse”. His
reception theory describes how producers use various signs to encode a programme’s
meaning, according to their ideologies and resources, which is then decoded by the
viewers, who have to interpret the message through their own framework of knowledge.

This approach emphasised the importance of the social and cultural context behind the flow
of “meaningful” discourse. Hall summarised the process in the following diagram:

For a television programme to be successful and for meaningful communication to take

place, Hall argued, the producers of the text and the audience sitting in their living rooms
need to have a shared understanding of the signs used in the construction of the broadcast.

According to Hall, there are three inputs in communication, based on which the message is
constructed by the producers and understood by the decoder

1. Technical Infrastructure
2. Structures of Production
3. Framework of Knowledge

Hall recognised the lack of symmetry between how the “source” understood a sign
compared to how the “receiver” interpreted the form. To distinguish between the two
connotations, the theorist simply labelled the meanings number one and number two.
Meaning 1 (Encoder)

The first moment of this communication model involves the practices and technical
infrastructure needed to produce a television programme. Each institution will have its own
professional values and the people behind the project will be informed by their frameworks of
knowledge and cultural assumptions.

For example, the BBC is the world’s largest national broadcaster with a huge infrastructure,
such as cameras, studio space, lighting rigs and portable production units situated across
the country. It certainly has the necessary means of production to investigate the issues
and debates hitting the headlines so editorial decisions have to be made on which stories
should feature in the news programme.

The relations of production refer to the different crews involved in the programme. Hall is
drawing our attention to how messages are encoded by the producer, newscaster, content
editor, camera operator and other technicians who help broadcast the news.

According to Hall’s reception theory, the messages being encoded and the signs used to
deliver this information will be influenced by the production process.

For our worked example, consider the following headlines in response to Donald Trump
testing positive for Covid-19 and decide which one comes from the BBC and which one was
posted by Fox News, an institution that firmly supports the Republican party in America.

The first headline is the BBC’s attempt at being factual. Notice how it lacks the emotive
“energetic” and the optimistic declaration that the president will still be able to “carry out
duties”. If you are particularly eagle-eyed, you may have spotted the comma appears inside
the inverted comma which is the American style of punctuation. In the UK, the comma would
be written outside the quotation mark. This is another example of the context influencing he
encoding of the message.

Meaning 2 (Decoder)

Of course, how these messages are decoded will depend on the political outlook of the
audience member. Although the physical form of the sign remains the same, its connotation
might shift because each person will have a different opinion of the very divisive Donald
Trump.

There is also the issue of our own framework of knowledge. For example, were you able to
decode the meaning of “WH”? Who is Pence? It is certainly possible for the audience’s
framework of knowledge to be vastly different from the institution which produced the
television programme.

In this way, the reception theory recognises how messages can be understood and
misunderstood.

Decoding Positions

Everyone will have their own interpretation of a television programme because we decode
the meaning through our individual frameworks of knowledge. Our understanding of the
media text is shaped by our age, social class, ethnicity, geography, and a myriad of other
factors. Of course, the wider social and political context will also influence our reactions.

Here are the 3 decoding positions

Preferred Reading - how the producer wants the audience to view the media text. Audience
members will take this position if the messages are clear and if the audience member is the
same age and culture; if it has an easy-to-follow narrative and if it deals with themes that are
relevant to the audience.

Oppositional Reading - when the audience rejects the preferred reading and creates their
own meaning for the text. This can happen if the media contains controversial themes that
the audience member disagrees with. It can also arise when the media has a complex
narrative structure perhaps not dealing with themes in modern society. Oppositional reading
can also occur if the audience member has different beliefs or is of a different age or a
different culture.

Negotiated Reading - a compromise between the preferred and oppositional readings,

where the audience accepts parts of the producer's views, but has their own views on parts
as well. This can occur if there is a combination of some of the above e.g. audience member
likes the media, is of the same age as you and understands some of the messages, but the
narrative is complex and this inhibits full understanding.

Many factors could affect whether the audience take the preferred, oppositional or
negotiated reading.

● Age
● Beliefs
● Culture
● Gender
● Life experience
● Mood at the time of viewing

Osgood-Schramm Model (Circular Model)

Wilbur Schramm, a well-known communications theorist, developed a straightforward

communications model. In Schramm's model he notes, as did Aristotle, that communication
always requires three elements — the source, the message and the destination. Ideally, the
source encodes a message and transmits it to its destination via some channel, where the
message is received and decoded.

However, taking the sociological aspects involved in communication into consideration,

Schramm points out that for understanding to take place between the source and the
destination, they must have something in common. If the source's and destination's fields of
experience overlap, communication can take place. If there is no overlap or only a small
area in common, communication is difficult, if not impossible.
Osgood and Schramm envisioned communication as a circular process which has beginning
and or end. Hence their model is called Circular Model. In their view, sender and receiver are
interchangeable positions and though not specifically mentioned, feedback is an essential
component of this model. There are three functions on each part of the communication
circle. They are : encoding, decoding and interpreting. Both sender and receiver are
encoders, decoders and interpreters at the same time.

Encoder–Who does encoding or sends the message

Decoder–Who receives the message

Interpreter–Person trying to understand (analyses, perceive) or interpret.

Merits of this model are:

1. Dynamic model-Shows how a situation can change

2. It shows why redundancy is an essential part

3. There is no separate sender and receiver, sender and receiver is the same person

4. Assume communication to be circular in nature

5. Feedback–central feature.

Attribution Theory

The attribution theory attempts to explain how individuals interpret events and
messages. The theory provides evidence that we attempt to predict others' behavior by
attributing their actions to known events.

How do we attach meaning to other's behavior or our own? This is called attribution
theory. For example, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because
something bad happened?

"Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at
causal explanations for events. It examines what information is gathered and how it is
combined to form a causal judgment" (Fiske, & Taylor, 1991)
Attribution theory is concerned with how and why ordinary people explain events as they
do.

Heider (1958) believed that people are naive psychologists trying to make sense of the
social world. People tend to see cause-and-effect relationships, even where there is
none!

Heider didn't so much develop a theory himself as emphasize certain themes that others
took up. There were two main ideas that he put forward that became influential.

1. Internal Attribution/ Dispositional Attribution

The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic, rather
than to outside forces. When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring
internal attributions, such as personality traits.

For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives, or

beliefs. If someone is shouting at others and is in a mood bad, internal attribution in this
case could be that the person is short-tempered or isn’t very good with communicating
with people politely or that person is rude and so on..

2. External Attribution/ Situational Attribution

The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a
person's control rather than to some internal characteristic.

When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such as
situational or environmental features. Eg if we are shouting at someone and are asked
why we did what we did, we might say that our day wasn’t good or we could altogether
blame the people we shouted at.

Kelley's Covariation Model

Kelley's (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory. He developed a

logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some

characteristic (internal) of the person or the environment (external).

The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple

observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an

observed effect and its causes.

He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior people act like scientists.

More specifically they take into account three kinds of evidence.

● Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar

situation.

● Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in

similar situations.

● Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the

situation occurs.

Let's look at an example to help understand his particular attribution theory. Our subject

is called Tom. His behavior is laughter. Situation is laughing at a comedian.

1. Consensus: If everybody in the audience is laughing, the consensus is high.

(External Attribution)

2. Distinctiveness: If Tom only laughs at this comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If

Tom laughs at everything, then distinctiveness is low. (Internal Attribution)

3. Consistency: If Tom always laughs at this comedian the consistency is high. If

Tom rarely laughs at this comedian, then consistency is low. (Can be external or

internal)

Now, if everybody laughs at this comedian, if they don't laugh at the comedian who

follows and if this comedian always raises a laugh, then we would make an external

attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because the comedian is very funny.

On the other hand, if Tom is the only person who laughs at this comedian, if Tom laughs

at all comedians, and if Tom always laughs at the comedian then we would make an

internal attribution, i.e., we assume that Tom is laughing because he is the kind of

person who laughs a lot.

So what we've got here is people attributing causality on the basis of correlation. That is

to say, we see that two things go together and we, therefore, assume that one causes

the other.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

The theory of cognitive dissonance argues that humans are consistency seekers and
attempt to reduce their dissonance, or cognitive discomfort. The theory was developed
in the 1950s by Leon Festinger.

The theory holds that when individuals encounter new information or new experiences,
they categorize the information based on their preexisting attitudes, thoughts, and
beliefs. If the new encounter does not fit their preexisting assumptions, then dissonance
is likely to occur.

Individuals are then motivated to reduce the dissonance they experience by avoiding
situations that generate dissonance. For this reason, cognitive dissonance is considered
a drive state that generates motivation to achieve consonance and reduce dissonance.

An example of cognitive dissonance would be if someone holds the belief that

maintaining a healthy lifestyle is important, but maintains a sedentary lifestyle and eats
unhealthy food. They may experience dissonance between their beliefs and their actions.

If there is a significant amount of dissonance, they may be motivated to work out more
or eat healthier foods. They may also be inclined to avoid situations that bring them face
to face with the fact that their attitudes and beliefs are inconsistent, by avoiding the gym
and avoiding stepping on their weighing scale.

To avoid dissonance, individuals may select their experiences in several ways:

selective exposure, i.e. seeking only information that is consonant with one's current
beliefs, thoughts, or actions;
selective attention, i.e. paying attention only to information that is consonant with one's
beliefs;
selective interpretation, i.e. interpreting ambiguous information in a way that seems
consistent with one's beliefs; and
selective retention, i.e. remembering only information that is consistent with one's
beliefs.
Social Penetration Theory ( under Socio-Psychological tradition)

Social penetration theory is a conceptual framework that describes the development of

interpersonal relationships. This theory refers to the reciprocity of behaviors between
two people who are in the process of developing a relationship. Given by Altman and
Taylor in 1973.

These behaviors can include verbal/nonverbal exchange, interpersonal perceptions, and

interactions with the environment. The behaviors vary based on the different levels of
intimacy in the relationship.

"Onion Peel theory"

This theory is often known as the "onion peel theory". This analogy suggests that like an
onion, personalities have "layers". The outside layer is what the public sees, and the core
is one's private self. When a relationship begins to develop, the individuals in the
relationship may undergo a process of self-disclosure, progressing more deeply into the
"layers".

Social penetration theory recognizes five stages: orientation, exploratory affective

exchange, affective exchange, stable exchange, and de-penetration. Not all of these
stages happen in every relationship.

1. Orientation stage: strangers exchange only impersonal information and are very
cautious in their interactions.
2. Exploratory affective stage: communication styles become somewhat more
friendly and relaxed.
3. Affective exchange: there is a high amount of open communication between
individuals. These relationships typically consist of close friends or even
romantic or platonic partners.
4. Stable exchange: continued open and personal types of interaction.
5. De-penetration: when the relationship's costs exceed its benefits there may be a
withdrawal of information, ultimately leading to the end of the relationship.

If the early stages take place too quickly, this may be negative for the progress of the
relationship.

Example: Jenny and Justin met for the first time at a wedding. Within minutes Jenny
starts to tell Justin about her terrible ex-boyfriend and the misery he put her through.
This is information that is typically shared at stage three or four, not stage one. Justin
finds this off-putting, reducing the chances of a future relationship.

Social penetration theory predicts that people decide to risk self-disclosure based on the
costs and rewards of sharing information, which are affected by factors such as
relational outcome, relational stability, and relational satisfaction.

Agenda Setting Theory (under Critical tradition)

What Is Agenda-Setting Theory?

Agenda-setting theory discusses the media's influence on society by controlling what to think
about and how to think about it. This happens by emphasising certain news repeatedly. The
theory has two fundamental assumptions:

1. The media yields authority over the truth behind the information by showing it
selectively and not comprehensively.
2. The media gives more prominence to certain news over others by reporting it
continuously and creating heightened importance around it.

The theory by Dr Maxwell McCombs, an American journalism scholar, and Dr Donald Shaw,
an American social scientist, is based on a 1968 study. The concept finds its earliest
mentions in 1922 by Water Lippman, an American writer and political commentator, who also
talked about the role of media in shaping the thoughts of the common public. In the 1960s,
Bernard Cohen, an American political scientist, also observed and expressed similar ideas
that eventually led to McCombs and Shaw formalising the theory in 1972.

Levels Of Agenda-Setting

Here are the two different levels of the agenda-setting theory:

First level

This includes picking up a particular new item over others, also known as object salience. It
deals with the object or news and the importance given to it. The first-level agenda setting
focuses on “what to think about” by influencing people's mindsets and getting their attention
through excessive reporting of particular news.

Second level
The second level consists of influencing the public's opinion by articulating their thoughts.
This primarily includes telling them “how to think about” a particular news story decided at
the first level. This level aims to set the agenda or narrative about certain news events and
developments by repeating the same perspective or highlighting the same information.

Factors Influencing Agenda-Setting

Here are some factors that can influence agenda-setting:

Gatekeeping

Gatekeeping refers to the various checks or gates that news items undergo before the final
draft of the story gets published. The reporters, publishers and editors of media companies
often act as the primary gatekeepers. A news story passes through different professionals
before it is finally published. This means that the personal views or thoughts of the
gatekeepers might influence the final article.

For example, a media company that has business interests in other ventures can benefit
from positive reportage of certain products. It may omit or downplay any negative reports
about customer sentiment or public opinion using these products, effectively gatekeeping
information.

Priming

Priming happens in agenda-setting when media companies prioritise specific issues over
other news items. This might influence the audience's perception of the report by artificially
increasing its urgency. Newspapers may do this by publishing such news on the front page,
and television channels may accomplish this by discussing it repeatedly in different news
bulletins and programmes. This can give the reader or viewer a feeling that the specific
event is more important than others. For example, if media companies cover a politician's
upcoming rally extensively, people might think it is an important event to attend.

Framing

Framing includes the various contexts in which different media companies show a particular
story. Factors like target audience, values and ethical standards can create this
differentiation in news reportage. Framing also discusses the manner in which the audience
interprets the news. The framing of particular stories can serve as a reference and result in
the public forming general opinions about what they read or watch in news reports. For
instance, if a certain fruit or vegetable gets continually associated with stronger teeth, people
may start making that connection on their own, even if the research makes a different claim.

Collaborating with other industries

Other industries that influence agenda setting include the marketing and public relation
companies that help set a positive agenda and maintain a favourable outlook for business
brands and individuals among the general public. This happens as the consequence of any
untoward incident that could tarnish an organisation's or individual's image. A company's PR
and corporate communication collaborate with media companies to spread positive news
that can benefit the company or individual.

Examples Of Agenda-Setting

Here are examples that can help you better understand the theory of agenda-setting:

Example 1: Promoting upcoming events

Media agencies sometimes highlight certain events like sporting events, musical concerts or
cultural events in a manner that generates the public's interest. The audience may not be
organically interested in the particular event, but the ongoing media reportage may influence
the group to look forward and even go to the event. Such media coverage campaigns help
these events be successful and profitable and help the media house generate revenues
through marketing them.

Example 2: Helping specific services or products gain new customers

A full-page news advertisement or a special broadcast on a certain weight loss pill can help
create curiosity among people about its effectiveness. Such media campaigns usually
introduce new products and services to the public and target audiences to try the product.
This fulfils the agenda of growth in sales by acquiring more customers when people
purchase the pill after seeing or reading about it.

Benefits Of Agenda-Setting
Here are some prominent advantages of agenda-setting:

● Generates awareness: Agenda-setting can be beneficial as it highlights important

societal issues by actively discussing them. The recurrence of specific news raises
awareness among people about the issue and how to solve it.
● Helps create a structured discussion: Agenda-setting provides a well-defined
framework for the discussion around a piece of information. This helps create a
nuanced debate covering all relevant aspects that highlight the pros and cons.
● Assesses the prevailing sentiment: Agenda-setting can be beneficial in gauging
the widespread opinions among the masses. Understanding the public views can
help media and other businesses operate favourably with the public's opinion and
increase their profitability.

Drawbacks Of Agenda-Setting

Here are some key disadvantages of the theory:

● Can lead to media bias and distortion of news: Media agencies often decide what
news stories to report and how to report them to influence people. When they
influence the reportage as per their belief systems, it can result in bias and lead to
distortion of factual and accurate news.
● May not influence the people who have a specific mindset: Agenda-setting may
not influence people with a predetermined notion about a particular issue, even if the
media objectively explains the challenges associated with it. So, agenda-setting
might not always positively influence the thought process of people.
● May miss out on important information: By choosing to focus only on specific
news stories, the media may inadvertently or consciously suppress information that
may be beneficial to the public. For instance, focusing on political developments or
sporting events instead of promoting a limited-time social security scheme that can
benefit people.
● Can be difficult to measure its impact: Agenda setting commonly influences the
mindset of people by influencing their thought processes. The degree to which they
can effectively influence people's thinking capabilities is unknown, making it difficult
to measure the effects and results accurately.

Agenda Melding

Agenda melding can be defined as the process by which audience members seek
out and blend media agendas from various communication sources to fit their
individual preferences and cognitions. Where the media can set the public agenda
by influencing the salience of key issues, along with details or attributes about those
issues, agenda melding argues that the already established values and attitudes of
audience members play a role in how those issues and attributes are sought out and
mixed—or melded—into a coherent individual picture of events. Agenda setting
focuses on the power of media to set agendas; agenda melding concentrates on the
ability of audience members to select among media, issues, and elements of
messages.

In short, agenda setting refers to the influence that media has over the
agendas of public figures and institutions. Media has always had the power
to influence society, but that power has grown and morphed considerably in
the past decade, especially with the advent of social media. When Shaw
noticed that agenda setting was changing along with the media industry in
the digital age, he coined a new term to describe what he was seeing:
agenda melding.

Shaw recently shared his ideas about how individuals and groups
participate in agenda melding, which is the idea that people tend to join
groups based on their common agendas.

“Media agenda setting is about how media tell society what to think about,
although not what to think,” Shaw said. “Agenda melding is about how
people use agendas themselves.”

According to Shaw, social media has made it much easier for people to
agenda meld than traditional media ever did. For instance, research has
found that many news consumers consult only sources that support their
political biases and follow individuals on social media who share their
interests.

As a result, people tend to consume media in an echo chamber, rarely

hearing opinions that differ from their own. And as media use fragments
along political and other lines, society, in some ways, is reshaped as well.

Shaw said that people typically get trapped within their own views and
opinions when they choose to follow accounts that fit their own tastes
rather than ones that provide alternative views. That’s why it’s important to
get news from sources beyond your social media feed.
“People have their own personal views, history and attitudes, which are
important as to how they interpret information,” said Shaw. “Agenda
melding recognizes how we now have two sources of information about life.

The first is traditional media, such as newspaper, magazine, television,

radio, etc. The second one is social media: Twitter, Facebook and other
media that represent context with an extended community of friends, and in
some cases, many people you don’t know. We mix these together in a
picture of the world that is comfortable.”

Combining these two types of media outlets is an important way for people
to understand information and create ideas and opinions of civic and
personal community, says Shaw. It’s all about how people take those views
and integrate them into everyday life.

7 traditions of Communication (Robert Craig)

The communication is quite a complicated process which has many particles, many
variables, and many parts which we have to consider. Let's now focus on the communication
theory itself and to talk about Robert Craig's seven traditions of communication theory. He
starts with the notion that many, many definitions of communication exist. Craig divides
seven traditions:
1) cybernetic
2) socio-psychological,
3) socio-cultural,
4) critical,
5) rhetorical,
6) phenomenological,
7) semiotic.

Cybernetic tradition is communication as a sort of information process. So here, we focus

on the system, we focus at individuals or organizations and the channels which are used in
order to transmit the message. Communication within this tradition is always goal-oriented.
And the sender has an initial goal before he creates the message and utilizes particular
communication channel to transmit it or send it. Still, what is received by the receiver and
decoded initially is different from the sender's message.

Socio-psychological tradition sees communication as interpersonal interaction. It lies under

this umbrella of behavioural approach, focusing on stimuli and reaction. So here, we speak
about cause and effect relationships within the communicative process. It's all about
expression, interaction, and influence. It originates in psychology and sociology, it tends to
be quite objective. And the theorists from the socio-psychological tradition are quite
objective.

Socio-cultural tradition sees communication as symbolic process in reproduction or

production of social order. It's all about context, culture, and social practices. So, if we were
focusing in the previous tradition at the level of an individual or a group in the way how would
they respond to the different stimuli. Here, we place an enormous importance on the context,
and the way how the society operates itself. So, the social practices which are our everyday
routines and the way how we understand and see the world, they are created due to the
interaction. So, individuals tend to talk to each other and while they are communicating, they
create the shared meaning and the shared understanding on what the world is and what this
particular situation is.

Language and ideology are two main focuses of the critical tradition, as scholars believe
that the group who controls the language can actually be dominant within the given society.
Ideology for critical scholars is very important, as it's embedded and that it also reproduces
through the different tools and through the different forms of media. That's why critical
scholars are focusing on media itself as mass form of communication which transmits the
ideology to the broader publics. And after all, this ideology through media becomes a part of
the overall discourse.

When you come to the public presentations, you use all your public speaking. This is
rhetorical tradition, and it originates in ancient Greece as we know that the most of the
important steps and important suggestions on the way how to structure your public speech
were developed. It's all about rhetoric, and the way how we can influence through verbal and
nonverbal communication.

The phenomenological tradition, says that communication process can be seen and
perceived differently by different people. So, communication as experience of self and others
through the dialog is a key focus of this tradition. We consider stem points and perceptions
of different people in different situations within the given context. So, if we try to understand
how the minority group, understand the reality and how do they conduct their
communication? We would better understand the consequences of side interactions.
Phenomenological traditions questioning rhetoric and semiotics. As the signs and symbols
can be seen differently by people with different backgrounds and rhetoric as the art of public
speaking does not usually work the same different audiences.

The semiotic tradition, is related to the signs and symbols as communication seen as
sharing meaning through system of signs. What does it mean? If we get into the
conversation of two people who know each other quite well, we might not completely
understand what's going on or we can misinterpret this conversation. Because these people
would already have a list of already spoken. So, they have special names and special
different jargon for the situations and for the previous experiences they already have. And us
trying to understand what are the signs and what are the symbols within the interaction is
quite essential and important. Representation and transmission of the meaning is always
given through the signs and symbols.
To summarize: we have seven traditions and each one of them sees communication
differently. Cybernetic tradition, it's all about the linear or not linear process but about the
system through which we transmit our message. Socio-psychological tradition, focusing at
an individual and this behavioural aspect of his communicating practices. Socio-cultural
tradition would rely on the context and the culture and the way how do we reproduce this
culture throughout the communication. Critical tradition is all about ideology and discourse.
Rhetorical tradition is the art of public speaking. This communication is an art of public
speaking. Phenomenological tradition is focusing on the way how do we understand the
experiences of other people and the experiences of the communication practices
themselves. Semiotic tradition, all about science and symbols which we can decode or which
we will fail to decode.

FORMS OF COMMUNICATION

Intrapersonal Communication

Intrapersonal communication is communication with oneself using internal vocalization or

reflective thinking. Like other forms of communication, intrapersonal communication is
triggered by some internal or external stimulus. We may, for example, communicate with our
self about what we want to eat due to the internal stimulus of hunger, or we may react
intrapersonally to an event we witness. Unlike other forms of communication, intrapersonal
communication takes place only inside our heads. The other forms of communication must be
perceived by someone else to count as communication. So what is the point of intrapersonal
communication if no one else even sees it?

Intrapersonal communication serves several social functions. Internal vocalization, or talking

to ourselves, can help us achieve or maintain social adjustment (Dance & Larson, 1972). For
example, a person may use self-talk to calm himself down in a stressful situation, or a shy
person may remind herself to smile during a social event. Intrapersonal communication also
helps build and maintain our self-concept. We form an understanding of who we are based on
how other people communicate with us and how we process that communication
intrapersonally. The shy person in the earlier example probably internalized shyness as a part
of her self-concept because other people associated her communication behaviors with
shyness and may have even labeled her “shy” before she had a firm grasp on what that meant.

We also use intrapersonal communication or “self-talk” to let off steam, process emotions,
think through something, or rehearse what we plan to say or do in the future. As with the
other forms of communication, competent intrapersonal communication helps facilitate social
interaction and can enhance our well-being. Conversely, the breakdown in the ability of a
person to intrapersonally communicate is associated with mental illness (Dance & Larson,
1972).

Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal communication is communication between people whose lives mutually

influence one another. Interpersonal communication builds, maintains, and ends our
relationships, and we spend more time engaged in interpersonal communication than the
other forms of communication. Interpersonal communication occurs in various contexts and
is addressed in subfields of study within communication studies such as intercultural
communication, organizational communication, health communication, and
computer-mediated communication. After all, interpersonal relationships exist in all those
contexts.

Interpersonal communication can be planned or unplanned, but since it is interactive, it is

usually more structured and influenced by social expectations than intrapersonal
communication. Interpersonal communication is also more goal oriented than intrapersonal
communication and fulfills instrumental and relational needs. In terms of instrumental needs,
the goal may be as minor as greeting someone to fulfill a morning ritual or as major as
conveying your desire to be in a committed relationship with someone. Interpersonal
communication meets relational needs by communicating the uniqueness of a specific
relationship. Since this form of communication deals so directly with our personal
relationships and is the most common form of communication, instances of
miscommunication and communication conflict most frequently occur here (Dance & Larson,
1972). Couples, bosses and employees, and family members all have to engage in complex
interpersonal communication, and it doesn’t always go well. In order to be a competent
interpersonal communicator, you need conflict management skills and listening skills, among
others, to maintain positive relationships

Group Communication

Group communication is communication among three or more people interacting to achieve

a shared goal. Group communication is more intentional and formal than interpersonal
communication. Unlike interpersonal relationships, which are voluntary, individuals in a
group are often assigned to their position within a group. Additionally, group communication
is often task focused, meaning that members of the group work together for an explicit
purpose or goal that affects each member of the group. Goal-oriented communication in
interpersonal interactions usually relates to one person; for example, I may ask my friend to
help me move this weekend. Goal-oriented communication at the group level usually focuses
on a task assigned to the whole group; for example, a group of people may be tasked to figure
out a plan for moving a business from one office to another.

You know from previous experience working in groups that having more communicators
usually leads to more complicated interactions. Some of the challenges of group
communication relate to task-oriented interactions, such as deciding who will complete each
part of a larger project. But many challenges stem from interpersonal conflict or
misunderstandings among group members. Since group members also communicate with and
relate to each other interpersonally and may have preexisting relationships or develop them
during the course of group interaction, elements of interpersonal communication occur within
group communication too.

Mass Communication

Public communication is a sender-focused form of communication in which one person is

typically responsible for conveying information to an audience.

Public communication becomes mass communication when it is transmitted to many people

through print or electronic media. Print media such as newspapers and magazines continue to
be an important channel for mass communication, although they have suffered much in the
past decade due in part to the rise of electronic media. Television, websites, blogs, and social
media are mass communication channels that you probably engage with regularly. Radio,
podcasts, and books are other examples of mass media. The technology required to send mass
communication messages distinguishes it from the other forms of communication. A certain
amount of intentionality goes into transmitting a mass communication message since it
usually requires one or more extra steps to convey the message. This may involve pressing
“Enter” to send a Facebook message or involve an entire crew of camera people, sound
engineers, and production assistants to produce a television show. Even though the messages
must be intentionally transmitted through technology, the intentionality and goals of the
person actually creating the message, such as the writer, television host, or talk show guest,
vary greatly. The president’s State of the Union address is a mass communication message
that is very formal, goal oriented, and intentional, but a president’s verbal gaffe during a news
interview is not.

Mass communication differs from other forms of communication in terms of the personal
connection between participants. Even though creating the illusion of a personal connection
is often a goal of those who create mass communication messages, the relational aspect of
interpersonal and group communication isn’t inherent within this form of communication.
Unlike interpersonal, group, and public communication, there is no immediate verbal and
nonverbal feedback loop in mass communication.
Uncertainty Reduction Theory

The uncertainty reduction theory explores the initial interaction between people that occurs
before the actual communication process and is hence also known as initial interaction theory.

It was developed by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese in 1975. They wanted to explain
how interpersonal communication is used to reduce uncertainty between strangers during
initial interaction. Berger says, “As the ability of persons to predict which alternative or
alternatives are likely to occur next decreases, uncertainty increases.”

Assumptions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Uncertainty reduction theory is based on the central assumption that the primary concern of
strangers upon initial interaction is to reduce uncertainty and increase predictability. Other
assumptions related to this theory are:

● People feel uncertain in initial interpersonal communication.

● Uncertainty can make people avoid a situation or behavior (aversive state) and
cause cognitive stress.
● Strangers want to reduce uncertainty/increase predictability in initial interaction.
● Interpersonal communication can be broken down into stages.
● Interpersonal communication leads to uncertainty reduction.
● People change the quantity and nature of information they share over time.
● It is possible to predict people’s behavior.

Core concepts of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

The theory says that people need prior information about others to reduce their uncertainty.
People feel unpleasant when they are uncertain about the other person’s behavior or actions,
so they try to reduce uncertainty through interpersonal communication.

Berger proposed seven axioms (self-evident truths) regarding this initial uncertainty.

Verbal communication

The level of initial uncertainty for each individual decreases with the onset of verbal
communication. Also, the communication increases as uncertainty decreases.

Nonverbal warmth (Non-verbal Comm)

As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness such as eye contact, head nods, smiles increase,
uncertainty decreases.
Information seeking

The need of information seeking decreases as uncertainty about the other person decreases.

Self-disclosure (Intimacy Level)

Individuals disclose intimate information as they feel the level of uncertainty decreasing.

Reciprocity

Uncertainty is directly proportional to reciprocity. In initial interaction, individuals tend to

reciprocate personal details to match the other person. As uncertainty is reduced, they don’t
feel the need to exchange details at a rapid rate.

Similarity

When individuals realize that they share the same interests as the other person, the
uncertainty decreases.

Liking

Uncertainty reduces as the feelings of approval between individual increase.

Types of Uncertainty

According to Berger there are two kinds of uncertainty that strangers face as they set out for
their first meeting. They are:

Cognitive uncertainty

Cognitive uncertainty means uncertainty related to beliefs and attitudes of people. Strangers
are not aware of each other’s beliefs and attitudes on initial interaction, so uncertainty is high
at this point.

Behavioral uncertainty

Behavioral uncertainty occurs when people try to predict the action of others in a given
situation. Uncertainty is high when people ignore societal norms (how one is expected to act)
in initial interactions. This reduces the likelihood of future conversations.

Motivation to reduce uncertainty (Why reduce uncertainity)

Individuals feel the need to reduce uncertainty only under certain circumstances. Berger has
identified three conditions that drives our need to reduce uncertainty.
Anticipation of future interaction

We want to reduce uncertainty when we know we will see the other person again.

Incentive value

We desire information from people who have or control something we want.

Deviance

The behavior of people deviate from accepted norms.

Stages of Initial Interaction

Berger and Calabrese broke down the process of relational development into three stages,
where each stage includes behaviors that indicate like or dislike.

The entry stage

Individuals begin communication under the guidance of behavioral norms, such as greeting
and exchange of demographic information (age, occupation, hometown).

The personal stage

They share more personal information as communication furthurs and one will seek
indications of values, attitudes, and morals from the other.

The exit stage

They will choose whether to continue the relationship based on the satisfaction level of the
interpersonal communication.

Criticisms of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Despite its widespread influence, the uncertainty reduction theory is not without criticism.
Some of them are:

● Some researchers argue that uncertainty reduction is not always the motivating
factor for communication. There is often a genuine desire to get to know the
other person.
● Berger and Calabrese only included middle class white people in their sample
size.
● The theory may be easily disproved because of the large scope of its axioms.
● Planalp and Honeycutt suggest that uncertainty will continue to increase after
initial interaction because of lack of understanding and impulsive behavior.
 ● Michael Sunnafrank argued that positive relational experience is the actual
motivation of interaction.

TOPIC 6: Baxter and Montgomery’s Relational Dialectics Theory

Relational dialectics theory is an interpersonal communication theory which explains

communication patterns that arise between individuals when they maintain a relationship.
The theory focuses on tensions and struggles in a relationship. These tensions could be within
the relational partners or between the couple and the society.

In communication, dialectics are competing states that are produced through dialogue.
Relational dialectics can be of two types – internal and external. Internal dialectics can be
understood as the tension between the relational partners while external dialectics can be
understood as the tension between the couple and society.

Assumptions of Relational Dialectics Theory

1. Relationships are not linear.
2. Relational life is characterized by change.
3. Contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life.
4. Communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational
contradictions.

Concepts of Relational Dialectics Theory

Contradiction

Contradiction is one of the core concepts of relational dialectics theory. A contradiction is

generated when two tendencies are interdependent, yet mutually negate one another. It can be
easily understood from the above example.

Joe and Hailie’s desire to stay close to each other and their need to maintain distance
simultaneously are contradictions.

Totality

Totality says that contradictions in a relationship are a unified whole and cannot be
understood in isolation. In simpler language, it means that the contradictions are intrinsically
related to each other and cannot be separated.

For example: Joe and Hailie’s desire to stay close to each other will not be called a
contradiction if their need to maintain distance does not exist at all. It takes both opposing
tendencies to form a contradiction.
Motion

Relationships are processual in nature. It means that relationships are not about a single
event. Rather, they are about various social processes that are simultaneous and of recurring
manner.

For example: We see Joe and Hailie do not feel the same with each other all the time. They
move between the periods when they want to spend more time with each other and when they
want to be their own person. This movement between contrary phases can be understood as
motion.

Praxis

Praxis focuses on the practical choices that human makes amidst the opposing needs. It
contains the view that humans are choice makers and objects of their own actions.

For example: Between the competing states of Joe and Hailie’s needs, they behave as per the
situation demands, backed by their logical reasoning.

How to manage Relational Dialectics?

The founders of this theory have suggested eight methods by which individuals can manage
dialectics in the relationship. These methods are briefly described below.

Denial – Denial refers to the act of responding to only one side of the tension while ignoring
the other side of tension.

Disorientation – Individuals can manage relational dialectics by disorienting the

relationship. This means the partners in a relationship can escape the tension by ending the
relationship.

Alternation – Alternation can be a good way of managing relational dialectics. In this

approach, the partners alternately give attention to their tensions.

Segmentation – It can be hectic for individuals to deal with all the tensions at once. So, they
can choose to deal with one side of the tension at a time. Unlike denial, this approach is
related with dealing with either all of the tensions in one area of life or with one kind of
tension in all areas of life.

Balance – In this approach, individuals compromise between two opposing forces. In other
words, they maintain a balance between the situation while partially responding to different
tensions.
Integration – Integration might not be easy but a useful method of managing relational
dialectics where an individual can integrate different tensions in his life to produce solutions
that solve all tensions at once.

Recalibration – Recalibrating is a process by which an individual reframes the whole tension

in a way that it no longer stays in the form of a tension.

Reaffirmation – Reaffirmation refers to the process of accepting the tension as a normal and
healthy part of a relationship is also a way of managing relational dialectics.

Limitations of Relational Dialectics Theory

Leslie Baxter believes that this theory has certain limitations. She has mentioned the
following three points as the major limitations of this work.

1. Leslie claims that the theory is too distanced from the naturally occurring talk
between relating parties and that the theory needs a firmer empirical base when
applied to talk between relating parties.
2. She believes that more future work needs to include multiple voices instead of
focusing on the more popular research on the dialectics between two voices.
3. She has stated that future research should focus on discourse through time, such
as studying dialogue and how it transforms over a long period of time.

Mass Society Theory

Mass society theory argues that with industrialization and subsequent social changes, people
have become isolated and alienated. Mass society, as depicted by Kornhauser, refers to a
social system in which elites are readily open to influence by nonelites. Simultaneously,
nonelites (in particular, those occupying marginal positions in society) are also highly
available for mobilization because they lack attachments to independent groups, the local
community, voluntary associations, and occupational groups. Social conditions resemble a
“mass society” when populations and elites can emotionally incite one another to extreme
actions. Under such circumstances, unconstrained social and political movements can
develop (even totalitarian ones such as in Nazi Germany). This type of theorizing about
collective behavior and social movements is also sometimes referred to as “breakdown
theory,” for obvious reasons.
In sum, in mass society (or the breakdown perspective), there is a lack of local primary
groups and secondary associations to integrate individuals into the normative constraints of
the larger society. According to this argument, people who join mass movements are those
with relatively weak social ties.
Mass society theory states that people have become more alienated and isolated with
subsequent social changes and industrialization (Giner, 2001). Mass society refers to a system
where elites are more open to affect and associate with non-elites. Mass society theory is
entirely based on the aspect that modernity has severely affected the social fabric. An
example is the internet which has opened up new channels of communication and expression
that, a long time ago, would have been considered fiction by most people. Some people feel
that cultural and technological advances have resulted from dysfunction and significant
disconnection in western societies. The use of media has led to isolation and alienation. Mass
society does not have any secondary organization and primary associations. Mass society
weakens the existing social ties among people as the community focuses on their digital
gadgets as communication (Giner, 2001). In the modern world, individuals find it challenging
to communicate satisfactorily with other people, and consequently, they cannot orient their
values or put themselves into harmony with society.

USES AND GRATIFICATION

Uses and gratification theory of communication explains how people use media to fulfill their
needs. Gratification of needs is the most important role of media for humans. People get
knowledge, interaction, relaxation, awareness, escape and entertainment through media
which they use for interpersonal communication as well.

The theory was introduced by Blumler and Katz in 1974 in the article “the Uses of Mass
Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research” and focuses its attention
on media users’ roles.

Concepts in Uses and Gratification Theory

Unlike agenda setting theory, framing theory and priming theory, this theory is about the use
of media by humans and not the effect of media. This theory is taken as the contradictory
theory to magic bullet theory as this theory takes public to be active whereas magic bullet
takes audience as passive respondents. The theory is centered upon users and audience
approach. This theory is more related to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Uses and gratification theory focuses on free will of audience and is deterministic as media
can be used in different ways and for different purposes. This theory assumes that there is
nothing as an absolute truth. The audience is said to have full control over the effect of media
on them as the effect can be chosen by the audience themselves. The theory is closely related
to human psychology of needs, motives and influence.

Categories of Uses and Gratification

Human needs and gratification can be divided into five broad categories. They are:
 ● Affective needs
Affective needs talk about emotional fulfillment and pleasure people get by
watching soap operas, series on television and movies. People relate to the
character and feel the emotions the characters show. If they cry, the audience cry
and if they laugh, audience laugh along with them.
● Cognitive needs
People use media to get information and fulfill their mental and intellectual
needs. People watch news mostly to gratify this need. Other examples can be
quiz programs, teaching programs, arts and crafts programs for children,
documentaries, how-to videos (DIYs), etc. Online media, Internet, is also being
used to get information to get this need fulfilled.
● Social integrative needs
The need of each person to socialize with people like family and friends is
social integrative need. People use media to socialize and interact through social
networking sites like Facebook, My Space, Twitter, etc. People also use media
to increase their social interactions by getting topics to talk with the near and
dear ones. Media also helps by providing people with topics and ideas to
talk/discuss with their friends and near ones, increasing their social interaction
skills.
● Personal integrative needs
Personal integrative needs are the needs for self-esteem and respect. People
need reassurance to establish their status, credibility, strength, power, etc. which
is done with the use of media. They use media to watch advertisements and
know which products are in fashion and shop accordingly to change their
lifestyle and fit in with other people.
● Tension free needs
People listen to songs and watch t.v when they are in stress to relieve their stress
or when they are bored at times. People might have various tensions in life
which they do not want to face, so take help of media to escape from it.

Objectives of Uses and Gratification Theory

The objectives of uses and gratification theory are:

● To show the relation of mass communication and how it is used to gratify needs
● To find out primary intentions of media use by people
● To know the positive and negative aspects of media use on the media users.

Features of Uses and Gratification Theory

● Audience is taken as important and goal oriented.

● The source of media is chosen by audience as per their own needs.
 ● This theory gives alternative choices on media for the audience.
● Media is taken as a means to an end.
● Uses and functions of media are different from a person to another and from one
situation to other.
● Uses are also decided for groups, communities and societies.
● Both individual and group needs are fulfilled by media.
● When needs are gratified, people get satisfaction.
● People are not taken as helpless victims of media.

● Mobile phones, internet, social networking sites, etc. are new form of
communication tool used for uses and gratification.

Examples of Uses and Gratification Theory

In situations like watching movies and listening to the music of your own choice, this theory
is applicable. People choose from their own choices and moods. The needs of the particular
person are met through the media used.

Some people might watch news for information, some for entertainment, and some for
self-reassurance. Some watch according to their moods. There are various needs which gets
fulfilled by the media.

Similarly, internet and mobile phones have become a source of media that tries to fulfill not
only the mass communication needs, but also interpersonal needs like interaction and
emotional involvement. People can use internet, text, call, talk with photos or with videos. It
is portable and accessible. It has come to be useful for many and serve many purposes.

Criticisms of Uses and Gratification Theory

● The theory does not show media as important.

● The theory does not believe in the power of media and how media can influence
human needs and gratification unconsciously.
● The model is audience centered and shows audience as an active participant.
● Critics think that the theory does not meet the standards to be called a theory
and can only be taken as an approach to analyze as research relies on
recollection of memory.
● The theory ignores the use of media in social structures.
● Audience might not always be active.

Three Waves of Feminism

The term feminism describes political, cultural, and economic movements that aim to
establish equal rights and legal protections for women. Over time, feminist activists have
campaigned for issues such as women’s legal rights, especially in regard to contracts,
property, and voting; body integrity and autonomy; abortion and reproductive rights,
including contraception and prenatal care; protection from domestic violence, sexual
harassment, and rape; workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against
all forms of discrimination women encounter.

Feminist history can be divided into three waves. The first wave, occurring in the 19th and
early 20th century, was mainly concerned with women’s right to vote. The second wave, at its
height in the 1960s and 1970s, refers to the women’s liberation movement for equal legal and
social rights. The third wave, beginning in the 1990s, refers to a continuation of, and a
reaction to, second-wave feminism.

1st wave

The first wave of feminism takes root in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom
(UK), starting in the mid-19th century. At this time, the main objective for women was to
attain legal rights. The Seneca Falls convention of 1848 marks the beginning of the
American first wave. This was the first women’s rights convention taking place in the US,
whose attendants were comprised of many abolitionists as well.

In the beginning, equal property rights and the abolishment of a husband’s ownership of
his wife stood at the forefront. Towards the end of the 19th century, the focus shifted to
demanding women suffrage, with the hope that the right to vote would preface the access
to further rights. Many advocates in the US, especially women of colour such as
Sojourner Truth or Maria Stewart, fought for this to be paralleled with universal suffrage.
However, the established feminist movement, members of which include Susan B.
Anthony, ignored these voices and instrumentalised racist argumentation for its own
cause, for example after the 15th Amendment of 1870, which (theoretically) gave voting
rights to African American men, causing outrage among many white suffragettes.

The first wave came to a close in around 1920, when some white women (of a certain age
and economic background) had been granted the right to vote in the US and the UK.

2nd wave

The second wave is said to have begun in 1963, catalysed by the publishing of Betty
Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique”, a work that gained remarkable reach in the US. It
argues, contrary to the 1950’s female stereotype, that women are not fulfilled by
caretaking, marriage or housework duties, and ties into the statement that “the personal is
political”, which has become a representative slogan of the second wave.

Over the next two decades, Western feminist movements achieved legislative milestones
in terms of reproductive rights, the right to equal pay and to equal education. It fought for
women to possess their own bank accounts without a husband’s approval, and denounced
domestic violence and sexual harassment. Sexual violence was a central theme to the
movement, and in the US there were also campaigns to eliminate forced sterilisations of
people of colour and people with disabilities.

The second wave managed to mobilise large groups for protest and activism, which
fuelled the trope of the “angry feminist”, brought about the myth of bra-burning, and
portrayed feminists as hysterical women who were falling out of line.

3rd wave

The third wave begins in the 1990s, with the Anita Hill case of 1991 as a distinctive
element to its upsurge. Anita Hill, an African-American law professor, testified about
facing sexual harassment by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, marking one of
the earliest public debates on workplace harassment.

Furthermore, the third wave is characterised by an increasing awareness of

intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the 80’s. It recognised the
interwoven forms of discrimination of racism, classism, ableism and more, and also
criticised the second wave for primarily representing the demands of white, cis, straight,
middle-class women.

Philosopher Judith Butler is also considered a central figure to the third wave, as she
defends the differentiation between sex and gender, strengthening the support of trans
rights.

Lastly, riot grrrl music groups emerged, giving rise to punk feminism and contrasting the
previous wave with a reclamation of femininity.

While there are many claims that only these first three waves of feminism exist, meaning
that the 3rd wave is still ongoing, others argue the third gave way to a fourth wave in the
2010s.