Comm Theory Final

Front 1

6 Cues for quick decisions

Back 1

1. Reciprocation

2. Consistency

3. Social proof

4.Liking

5. Authority

6. Scarcity

Front 2

The more listeners work toevaluate a message-

Back 2

-the less they will be influencedby content-irrelevant factors; the greater the effect of content-irrelevantfactors--the less impact the message carries

Front 3

Motivation for elaboration:

Back 3

Motivated to hold correct attitudes Focus on issues that are personally relevant Requires intelligence and concentration Distraction disrupts elaboration Repetition may increase possibility for elaboration Too much repetition causes people to take peripheral route, though.

Front 4

Types of elaboration: Objective:

bottom-up thinking. Considers facts on their own merit.

Back 4

-Examines the perceived strength of an argument
-Strong messages = generate favorable thoughts
-Thoughtful consideration of strong arguments will produce positive shifts in attitude

1. Change is persistent over time
2. It resists counter-persausion
3. Predicts future behavior

Front 5

Types of elaboration: Bias

Back 5

Bias: top-down thinking. Occurs when predetermined conclusionscolor the supporting data underneath

Front 6

3 overarching dialectics:

Back 6

1. Integration-separation
2. Stability-change
3. expression-nonexpression

Front 7

3 latitudes (degrees of tolerance):

Back 7

1. Acceptance
2. Rejection
3. Noncommitment

Front 8

Social Judgement Theory

Back 8

At the instant of perception, people compare messages to their present point of view.

Front 9

Social Judgement Theory does

Back 9

-Requires highly ego-involved issues
- A highly credible speaker can shrink a listener’s latitude of acceptance
-Application raises ethical problems
-Has practical utility for persuaders
-When something falls in the land of rejection it offers specific predictions and explanations about what happens in the mind
-It is falsifiable
-SJT is an appealing approach to persuasion

Front 10

Relational Dialectics

Back 10

A dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies

Front 11

3 overarching dialectics that effect relationships

Back 11

-Integration-separation
-Stability-change
-expression-nonexpression

Front 12

Identify its ontological commitments

Back 12

What’s real?

Front 13

Identify its epistemological commitments

Back 13

How we find out about it?

Front 14

Identify its axiological commitments

Back 14

What value do we bring to research?

Front 15

Post-positivism: Theoretical Perspectives

Back 15

Ontology: Realism, Social Constructionism - Reification equivalent to realism (we create the meanings of the world then treat them as real)

Epistemology: Objective (stand apart/ look at it)

Axiology: Value free/ leave values at the door.

Front 16

Interpretive: Theoretical Perspectives

Back 16

Ontology: social constructionist; meaning arises in interaction; people make the world they live in

Epistemology: Subjective; you bring your ideas about social life to what you study

Axiology: Value-neutral; bring your own values and recognize others values without judgement

Front 17

Critical (both Marxist and Gramscian):
Theoretical perspectives

Back 17

Ontology M: Explains human relations
Ontology G: People complicit in their own oppression, false consciousness

Epistemology: Marxist- objective Gramscian- subjective (how culture works)

Axiology: Value-driven; seek cultural forms and practices that celebrate human worth and human dignity

Front 18

Accuracy

Back 18

getting the right answer each time vs. reliability which is getting the same answer every time

Front 19

Falsifiability

Back 19

requirement that a scientific theory be stated in such a way that it can be tested and disproved if it’s wrong

Front 20

Heuristic value

Back 20

any approach to problem-solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals. Heuristic value: does this theory offer more avenues for future research? Can we explain more with this, or is it done?

Front 21

Scope

Back 21

little scope = more specific terms of the theory; can the theory be more widely applied? If so, the theory needs to broaden to be more inclusive. By removing extraneous variables, the theory can be streamlined.

Front 22

Duh Factor

Back 22

The Obvious

Front 23

Parsimony

Back 23

given two plausible explanations for the same event, we should accept the simpler version

Front 24

POWER

Back 24

-Definition- altering behavior- getting someone to do something they wouldn’t do otherwise
-Power is different than force, power is to the extent you’re offered a choice
-Controlling the agenda
-Managing perceptions- defining something as a problem or not a problem
-Power is a neutral concept

Front 25

Types of Power

Back 25

-Referent: when other people wanna be like you ←- cheap
-Reward: Power to do nice things for people ←- expensive
-Coercive: power to punish ←- expensive
-Legitimate: power that comes from occupying some social position that gives you power- others expect them to be in charge but it’s fragile ←- cheapest

Front 26

Types of control

(controlling power as a resource)

Back 26

-Simple control: altering behavior
-Technological: controlling the agenda or the way work is managed
-Bureaucratic: people’s allegiance to the rules, not the person
-Concertive: control people exercise over each other- peers enforce the rules over other peers