Communication Theory

John Meldrin T. Valiente

BsDC 2-3
 I. Attachment Theory
This theory focuses on the intimacy between relationships and the role of attachment to a
person’s life. This is a comprehensive theory of emotional and mental development along
with motivations, personality and psychopathology. This was first studied by John Bowlby
who was later assisted by Mary Ainsworth after his initial empirical insight (Cassidy, Jones
and Saver 2013).
Attachment refers to the lasting bond between individuals where in a person’s need for
comfort and safety from dangers is satisfied. According to John Bowlby, humans are born
with set of behaviors that help ensure closeness toward a comforting, protecting figure. He
also added that the set of behaviors act as the attachment while the attachment figure is
represented by what he called the comforting, protecting figure and that the attachment
between them would affect the person for the rest of their lives.
There are two components in the theory: the normative that explains the stages of
development that individuals under go and the typical pattern of behavior and; individual
difference component that explain the stable, systematic deviations from the behavioral
pattern and strategies.
A. Scientific Standard 1: Explanation of Data
The attachment theory is considered objective in the aspect data explanation because
it manages to give clarity on what is happening towards something that is seemingly
simple and natural. A research by McLeod (2017) stated that the theory manages to
explain the how parent-child relationship emerges and influence subsequent
developments. Another research also stated that the theory is able to explain the positive
maternal-infant attachments as a dyadic relationship between infant and mother (Flaherty
and Sadler 2010).

B. Scientific Standard 2: Prediction of Future Events

The theory also manages to predict certain events or possibilities where in it is called
attachment patterns. Below are patterns of different attachments along with their stating
some of their characteristics, relationship quality, relationship stability and disclosure.
Secure Attachment

Characteristic
Disclosure
Has strong sense of self-worth;
sees positive aspects of Has high level of
Relationship disclosure; comfortable
attachment figure.
Stability discussing various topics
“I am ok and you are ok too.” with both relational
Stable relationships
Relationship Quality
Preoccupied Attachment and strangers.
partners
The more the individual is
secure, the higher the
relationship quality is.
 Characteristic

Has weak sense of self-worth;

faces fear of abandonment
Relationship
from their attachment figure Disclosure
Stability
and continuously monitors the
relationship. Enduring butHigh
haslevel of disclosure;
relatively
low relational not flexible in
“I am not ok but you are ok.” terms of topics given in
quality and negative
effect. various situations.
Relationship Quality

Most likely to face

dissatisfaction due to anxiety.

Dismissive Attachment

Characteristic

High level of self-worth but low

level of trust towards others;
Disclosure
only sees negative aspects of
attachment figure. RelationshipHigh low level of
Stability
disclosure; less flexible.
“I am ok but you are not ok.”
Uncertain

Relationship Quality

Most likely to face

dissatisfaction due to low level
of closeness.

Fearful Avoidant Attachment

 Characteristic

Has weaker sense of self-

worth; fear of rejection causes
avoidance in attachment
figures. Disclosure
Relationship
“I am not ok and you are not Stability High low level of
ok too.” disclosure; less flexible.
Uncertain

Relationship Quality

Most likely to face

dissatisfaction due to anxiety
and low level of closeness.

In terms of research application, it was stated by Flaharty and Sadler (2010) on

their research entitled “A Review of Attachment Theory in The Context of Adolescent
Parenting” that infants securely-attached infants tend to have favorable, long-term
outcomes while insecurely attached infants tend to have adverse outcomes as stated on
the theory’s pattern.

C. Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity

Ainsworth and Bowlby stated that “Humans are born with set of behaviors that
help ensure closeness (attachment) to a comforting, protecting figure (attachment
figure)”. His definition on attachment itself is completely simple and easy to understand
since it is not that complex and tends to follow the rule of parsimony which states that
given two explanations, the simplest should be accepted. As you can also see, his
definition did not give unneeded variables, assumptions and concepts enabling the theory
to follow the scientific principle called the Ocean’s razor.

D. Scientific Standard 4: Hypothesis That Can Be Tested

Though Ainsworth and Bowlby theory was able to explain certain events in terms
of attachment toward caregiver and infant Cowan and Cowan published a research stating
seven issues and problems connected to the theory that is still left unresolved. In their
research, they stated that suggested the necessity for revisions. Here are the set of
questions and issues that were still left unanswered and unresolved according to Cowan
and Cowan:
 1. Is attachment best measured as categories or continua?
2. Do individuals hold unitary or multiple models of attachment?
3. Does early attachment to a caregiver serve as a template for attachments
throughout life?
4. Does attachment change developmentally over time?
5. Is attachment culture specific or universal?
6. How can a family systems perspective increase understanding of cross-
generational adaptation?
7. Is attachment theory helpful to parents and therapists? 

E. Scientific Standard 5: Practical Utility

Attachment theory has an inordinate and wide influence in four professions
concerned with children (Cotto et al. 2017). It was stated that these fields include family
therapy, education, the legal system, and public policy and medical profession.
According to Cotto et al. (2017), the theory focuses more on the child along with
parenting and is therefore practically used to review specific attachment applications such
as intensive mothering, child-centered parenting and natural parenting and evolutionary
parenting.
In terms of practical utility, the practical use of this theory is more focused on
parenting and the connection between caregivers and children not just in researches but
also in policy making. This said, the theory is clearly following Lewin’s claim about
practicality.
F. Scientific Standard 6: Quantitative Research
According to an article by Cassidy et al. (2013), John Bowlby used case studies and
statistical methods to first examine precursors of delinquency and arrived with his initial
empirical insight: The precursors of emotional disorders and delinquency could be found
in early attachment-related experiences, specifically separations from, or inconsistent or
harsh treatment by, mothers (and often fathers or other men who were involved with the
mothers).
He then formed a working relationship with Mary Ainsworth where in through her
careful observation, the precursors of emotional disorders and delinquency could be
found in early attachment-related experiences, specifically separations from, or
inconsistent or harsh treatment by, mothers (and often fathers or other men who were
involved with the mothers).
With the efforts of Blehar, Waters and Wall on 1978, she managed to create the
“Strange Situation” that provided a gold standard for identifying and classifying
individual differences in infant attachment security (and insecurity) and ushered in
decades of research examining the precursors and outcomes of individual differences in
infant attachment.
 Years after Ainsworth's Strange Situation was proposed, Mary Main and colleagues
provided a way to study the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns. It was
found that the parent's “state of mind with respect to attachment” predicted his or her
infant's pattern of attachment. This then supported Bowlby’s belief that attachment is a
process characterizes humans “from the cradle to the grave”.
According to McLeod (2017) John Bowlby worked as a psychiatrist in a Child
Guidance Clinic in London during the 1930’s. There, he treated children who are
“emotionally disturbed”. Bowlby’s experience in the clinic lead him to consider the
importance of the children’s relationship with their mothers.
With these given claims it can be said that Bowlby’s theory was formed through
observations and later proved by researches connected to it. It can therefore be concluded
that the Attachment Theory can be considered as objective in nature since observations in
different “specimens” have been made to test and prove it.

II. Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Uncertainty Reduction theory was introduced by Charles Berger and Richard
Calabrese during 1975. It attempts to explain how people use communication strategies
for the reduction of uncertainty with others. The theory suggests that during interactions
with other people, we use passive, active and interactive strategies that can help us
predict and explain the person’s behavior.
There are certain assumptions under this theory. First is that uncertainty creates
cognitive discomfort. It occurs primarily by asking questions to new acquaintances with
an attempt of gathering information. The information is then used to predict the person’s
behavior along with the possible outcome of the relationship. This information seeking
process undergoes developmental stages, indicating changes in the quantity and type of
information shared.
In connection to these assumptions, Berger and Calabrese pointed out seven concepts
related which are verbal output, nonverbal warmth, information seeking, self-disclosure,
reciprocity, similarity and liking.
Verbal output tends to focus on the level of communication intimacy and similarity
between individuals. Nonverbal warmth focuses on gestures and body language.
Information seeking is about the will of the individual to know more about the other.
Self-disclosure on the other hand is the willingness of the person to communicate openly.
Reciprocity is defined as the individuals’ interest in reducing uncertainty. Similarity talks
about how similarity may accelerate the communication intimacy process. Lastly,
concept of liking is about the process of approval between individuals.
A. Scientific Standard 1: Explanation of Data
 Uncertainty Reduction theory was originally created in order to explain the
communication process between two strangers as they interact (Redmond 2015). This
theory tends to give clarity on how uncertainty is being reduced by means of sharing
information in order to create predictions and understanding on the individual’s behavior.
According to Bajracharya (2018) Berger defined it “as the ability of persons to predict
which alternative or alternatives are likely to occur next decreases, uncertainty
increases.” Which is why according to mastersincommunication.com, since people tend
to be uncomfortable with the uncertainty, they tend to make ways to reduce it through
communication strategies.
A website named communicationstudies.com gave a certain example or scene about
this theory where in two complete strangers are paired up in their job for a certain project.
In the scene it was stated that due to their uncertainty towards each other there was fear
and awkwardness between them that slowly faded as they get to chat more and more
casually.
These said, it has been proven that this theory created by Berger and Calabrese fits
the first instrument since it manages to give us an explanation on what is happening.
B. Scientific Standard 2: Prediction of Future Events
According to Berger and Calabrese, the reduction of uncertainty follows a certain step
or procedure which is listed and described below:

Entry Personal

They begin to share more Exit

Individuals exchange
demographic information
such as age, gender,
occupation and place of
origin which generally
social rules and norms.
personal data such as
attitudes, beliefs and values;
communication at this point
is less constrained by social
norms.
They then decide whether
or not to continue the
relationship in the future.

According to Redmond’s research on this theory published in 2015, Berger (1988)

stated that “The acquisition, processing, retention, and retrieval of information is vital to
the growth, maintenance, and decline of personal and social relationships. Relationships
can be viewed as systems of information exchange that must reduce uncertainty in order
to survive.” This just means that if the level of uncertainty would not be reduced the
relationship is most likely to end.
C. Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity
If we follow Berger’s 1988 description stating that “…Relationships can be viewed as
systems of information exchange that must reduce uncertainty in order to survive.” I can
be said that the description itself is relatively simple since he avoided the use of deep
words and unneeded variables this following the rule of Parsimony and Ocean’s razor.

D. Scientific Standard 4: Hypothesis That Can Be Tested

Although the theory managed to inspire and influence various communication
researches, it still has its faults and criticisms that may lead to it being tested in order to
determine whether or not it is true. Such scholars criticize that uncertainty reduction is
not always the factor that motivates communication since there are those that just
genuinely wish to make connections with other people.
According to Michael Sunnafrank (1986) motivation to reduce uncertainty is not a
primary concern. He argued that the “maximization of relational outcomes” was given
more significant concerns during initial encounters. This criticism was then combated by
Berger acknowledging the fact that outcomes cannot be predicted if there is no previous
history, he also stated that Sunnafrank’s argument has just expanded his theory.
Kathy Kellerman and Rodney Reynolds (1990) has also tried to test one of the
theory’s assumption. They studied over a thousand students and discovered that the want
for knowledge is a greater indicator than lack of knowledge in for the promotion of
information-seeking. With this theory, it was shown that high levels of uncertainty itself
is not enough to motivate information-seeking but it also needs the want for information.
With these claims and criticisms, it can be seen that the theory may still be proved
false which therefore adheres to Karl Popper’s requirement called “falsifiability”.
E. Scientific Standard 5: Practical Utility
According to communicationstudies.com, this theory has been used nd applied to
researches that tackle intercultural interaction, organizational socialization and
interactions in social media. An example of this is a journal published by Gudykunst
(1985) where in he stated that Uncertainty Reduction theory is one of the major theories
used in explaining interpersonal communication between people of the same culture.
The theory created by Berger and Calabrese focuses on interactions between strangers
which can be seen and experienced almost every day this said, the theory can therefore
easily be applied almost to anything as long as it involves interactions making it practical.
F. Scientific Standard 6: Quantitative Research
According to Redmond (2015), Berger and Calabrese observed that when strangers
interact, they experience uncertainty because they tend to have no idea on what to expect.
There is no other data regarding the origin of this theory but according to Redmond’s
2015 research about the theory, it came from the observations on how strangers interact
this said, we can consider it as somewhat objective because it involves thee act of
observing people and how communication takes place.
III. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
A. Scientific Standard 1: Explanation of Data
B. Scientific Standard 2: Prediction of Future Events
C. Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity
D. Scientific Standard 4: Hypothesis That Can Be Tested
E. Scientific Standard 5: Practical Utility
F. Scientific Standard 6: Quantitative Research