Module 4 - Theories of Individual Outcomes

5/19/2021 Module 4 - THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
Module 4 - THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
Site: New Era University Printed by: Aron C. Perales

Course: COM122-18 - Communication Theories Date: Wednesday, 19 May 2021, 9:16 AM
Book: Module 4 - THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
https://college.neu.edu.ph/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=141333 1/36
Description
Lesson 1: Title
Table of contents
1. Introduction/Overview
2. Learning Outcomes
3. Magic Bullet / Hypodermic Needle Theory
4. Two-Step Flow Theory
5. Reinforcement Theory or Limited Effect Theory
6. Expectancy Violation Theory
7. Uses and Gratification Theory
8. Media Dependency Theory
9. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
10. Social Penetration Theory
11. Uncertainty Reduction Theory
12. Social Exchange Theory
13. QUIZ
14. FORUM
15. References
1. Introduction/Overview
Visual Credited to: audiopedia.com
The term communication theory refers to the body of theories that constitute our understanding of the communication process (Littlejohn, 1983).
Theories represent various ways in which observers see their environment, and as Littlejohn claims (1983, p. 12), because theories are
abstractions, every theory is partial. Each theory delineates a way of looking and, therefore, its truth value can only be measured in term of how
well it is constructed. This is the reason why there is much disagreement about what constitutes an adequate theory of communication. The
search for who is doing what in a communication process and with what effects, to paraphrase Lasswell (1948), is the basic question of every
communication theory, although it might be studied from different angles or by looking at different facets.
2. Learning Outcomes
At the end of the module, students should be able to:
1. Explain the different theories under Individual Outcomes, and provide comprehensive background of the following theories:
Magic Bullet / Hypodermic Needle Theory

Two-step flow
Reinforcement
Expectancy violation/Expectancy value
Media Dependency
Uses and gratification
Cognitive Dissonance
Social Penetration
Uncertainty Reduction
Social Exchange
3. Magic Bullet / Hypodermic Needle Theory
In mid 1930’s media scholars found the first theory on Media Effects and the Media Behaviors. During second world wars media plays a vital
role in both United States and Germany to made influence in the people’s mind. The Germany Hitler’s Nazi used film industry for Propaganda
and they produced lots of movies about their achievements which made a great impact in Germans mind. Later the United States also used its
own Hollywood and produced films like “Its Happened one night”, “It’s a wonderful life” and Mr. Smith goes to Washington” to portrait Germany
as Evil force which also made impact in Americans Mind. Here media audience accepts the messages directly without any rejection.
The media (magic gun) fired the message directly into audience head without their own knowledge. The message cause the instant reaction
from the audience mind without any hesitation is called “Magic Bullet Theory”. The media (needle) injects the message into audience mind and it
cause changes in audience behavior and psyche towards the message. Audience are passive and they can’t resist the media message is called
“Hypodermic Needle Theory”.
Both theories are deals with impact of media messages in audience mind and how audience react towards the message without any hesitation.
In 1930, Newly formed mercury theater and Orson Wells join together and created a fake news bulletin about aliens invasion in American city
called Grover’s Mill, New jersey. They broadcast this news bulletin in between the radio program called “The War of the Worlds”. The “Panic
Broadcast” was reached merely 12 million American people and one million were seriously believed. Due to this broadcast the whole country
was in chaos.
In the present day, this theory is considered outdated now due to the process and improvements of technology. The majority of the public have
more access to the internet and can access it anywhere with the use of many brands and phones. Because of this, the media industry which
aren’t involved in online reports will suffer as the public aren’t waiting for them to give information either if it’s true or false.
One of the main reasons why that this theory was believed to be outdated was due to the fact that the reactions were based on human
assumptions, giving no real basis to the theory. People were assumed to be “uniformly controlled by their biologically based instincts.”
4. Two-Step Flow Theory
Visual Credited to: communicationtheory.org
In 1944 Paul Lazarsfeld, (1901-1976) an American Social Researcher, Bernard Berelson (1912 – 1979) and Hazel Gaudet was introduced The
Two-Step Flow of Communication in the book called “The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New
York: Columbia University Press”.
The purpose of the study was focused on Presidential election Campaign and the people decision-making process towards the campaign. All
three researchers were wanted to find out practically whether the mass media messages affect direct influence in voting decision among the
people. Unexpectedly they found the media messages (like radio and newspapers) are very less influence then an informal, personal
communication on voting behavior. Based on this researched data, The Two Step Flow Communication Theory of Mass Communication was
developed by Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld.
Opinion Leader:
Opinion Leader is a leader for a certain group who gives details and information to lesser active persons in the group. In office, the managing
director is an opinion leader and in public, a political leader is an opinion leader. They interpret the information to their own group. But one thing
the Opinion leader is a leader only for their own group not for all.
In Public, Political leader is an opinion leader. Here few people are not influenced by the leader and their political views and thought. These
people won’t support opinion leaders and isolated from the population.
Katz and Paul seems “the flow of media messages from radio and print to opinion leaders and then the leaders leads the messages to lesser
active users in the population”. Through this transformation of message, the leaders may add their opinion on the actual content which may
affects the low active users. In some cases the Opinion leaders are filtering the actual content ensures the information is needed by the people.
Mostly the opinion leaders are selective and they pass the messages to the group. (Low-end media users: Poor, Worker and People who are
not affordable for getting information directly).
Note: The Opinion leaders have enough voice only in structured social groups not in an isolated individual in the population.
Critics:
Researchers found substantial evidence that initial mass media information flows directly to people on the whole and is not relayed by opinion
leaders.
The two-step hypothesis does not adequately describe the flow of learning. Lazarsfeld and his associates in the 1940 election study were
unable to determine the specific flow of influence.
Today most of the advertising researches are based on this theory. Especially opinion leaders role in the society as well as in home to which
helps to improve the market with less efforts.
5. Reinforcement Theory or Limited Effect Theory
Visual Credited to: mediastudies.com
In 1960, theorist Joseph Klapper published ‘The Effects of Mass Communication’ in which he proposed the Reinforcement Theory. Klapper
argued that the mass media does not have the ability to influence audiences. “Regardless of whether the effect in question be social or
individual,” he wrote, “the media are more likely to reinforce than to change.” Klapper argued that people’s attitudes, beliefs and behavior was
more likely to be influenced by their family, schools, communities and religious institutions. He argued that the only time the media could
influence people was when the media introduced a new idea or concept. Klapper also pointed out that there are particular attitudes and beliefs
that the mass media is particularly unlikely to change, such as racial and religious tolerance because attitudes on such topics are “crucial to their
self-images and central to clusters of related attitudes, they have occasionally been called “ego-involved,” attitudes and it has become
something of a dictum that ego-involved attitudes are peculiarly resistant to conversion by mass communication – or, for that matter, by other
agencies.”
When writing about whether media violence encourages people to be more aggressive, Klapper wrote: “Communications research strongly
indicates that media depictions of crime and violence are not prime moves towards such conduct. The content seems rather to reinforce or
implement existing and otherwise induced behavioral tendencies. For the well adjusted, it appears to be innocuous or even to be selectively
perceived as socially useful. For the maladjusted, particularly the aggressively inclined and the frustrated, it appears to serve, at the very least,
as a stimulant to escapist and possibly aggressive fantasy, and probably to serve other functions as yet unidentified.”
1. The main generalization of Klapper’s theory is that… Mass communication ordinarily does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause
of audience effects, but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influences.
2. The second generalization is that… These mediating factors are such that they typically render mass communication a contributory agent,
but not as the sole cause in a process of reinforcing the existing conditions. Regardless of the condition in question and regardless of
whether the effect in question, be social or individual, the media are more likely to reinforce than to change.
3. Another generalization made by Klapper’s theory is that… When (in certain exceptional cases) mass communication does function in the
service of change , one of the two following conditions is likely to exist: o The mediating factors will be found to be inoperative and the
effect of the media will be found to be direct; or o The mediating factors, which normally favor reinforcement, will be found to be impelling
toward change.
To understand further the topic on Reinforcement Theory or the Limited Effect Theory of Media, let us all watch this video.
The Reinforcement Theory | Media in Minutes | Episode 4
6. Expectancy Violation Theory
Expectancy violation is a communication theory which tries to explain the unexpected behaviors of human beings while interacting. The theory is
based on the uncertainty reduction theory where the vagueness on the behaviors of the others is reduced through interaction. The theory was
developed from the Nonverbal expectancy violation model by Judee K. Burgoon which described the personal space possessed by a person
and how people responded to its violation. People expect or predict a particular behavior while interacting and the violation to these expectations
can be perceived positively or negatively which is characterized by the relationship between the people.
Expectancy violation theory
Expectancy violation theory emphasizes on an individual perception of the interaction in a particular situation. People while communicating will
create an expectation of how the other will react. Violation to this expectation can cause to a perception that will be positive or negative. People
behave differently according to the cultural values they grow up in and this influences the reaction of the people considerably.
Expectancy violation theory also is dependent on the personal space. The personal space is the boundary we keep and freedom is given to the
people whom we are close with. Particular personal space is expected from the people whom they interact with according to the relationship
they have with them. The theory explains that people tends to protect the personal space when they experience a violation in the expected
behavior.
There are two types of expectancies
Predictive – predictive expectancy is defining the communication and interaction happening within a particular environment or a context
Prescriptive– people displaying behaviors appropriate to the existing environment
Expectancy in people is determined by three factors
Interactant characteristics – this includes age, sex and other personality traits of the person make the listener creates an expectation of
behavior
Interpersonal characteristics – this character deals with the relationship that the person has with the listener
Environment – the context refers to the cultural influence and also the social situation. All these factors lead to an expectation in behavior
and the listener can conceive the violation from the expected behavior as positive or negative. For instance if we expect a gym instructor to be
rough and but while interacting the listener will be surprised of his calm and gentle behavior. The unexpected behavior however caters to
whether the communication should continue or not. The positivity perceived by the listener can pursue the communication while negativity to
the listener can hinder the communication further
Criticism
Expectancy violation theory pictures the expectancies more negatively and vaguely. The studies have proved that the vagueness of the people
provides a space for sharing more about themselves and thus the uncertainty is reduced.
Applications
The expectancy violation theory can be applied in the study of various interpersonal relationships. Positive violations can be effectively applied
in various sectors of organizations which could in turn increase profit and productivity.
Key concepts and predictions

The first key concept in the theory is expectations. As a communication theory, EVT is concerned specifically with what people expect to do in
interpersonal interactions. Expectations are enduring cognitions about the behavior anticipated of others. They are a product of social norms in a
given situation and any individuating information that one actor has about the other (Burgoon & Walther, 1990). For strangers, expectations are
based on the social norms associated with their personal characteristics like gender or culture, relationship factors like status or trust, and
context factors like the type of interaction and setting. Two young women meeting for the first time at a friend's dinner party will sit and stand
much closer to each other than two older businessmen attempting to handle a financial dispute. If it is normative in a given culture to stand close
enough together to be able to touch, feel each other's body heat, and smell each other's breath, that is the expected distance. Who, what,
where, and why will all influence what is normative and therefore expected. If actors are acquainted, any knowledge they have of the other's
idiosyncrasies, such as a tendency to carry on conversations at a very close range, will allow them to “individuate” the expectations to take such
unique variability into account. The nature of expectations forms the first proposition of the theory.
Proposition 1: Distancing and personal space expectations are a function of the social norms and the known idiosyncrasies of the interactants.
The same factors that influence norms and expectations determine another key concept: communicator reward valence. In resolving the
conflicting findings about proxemics, Burgoon and colleagues realized that the desirability of close or far proximity depends on characteristics of
the person setting the interaction distance (hereafter, the initiator or violator) and how those characteristics are evaluated by the recipient of the
violation (hereafter, the target). EVT assumes that in any interaction, people size each other up along a host of dimensions—attractiveness,
status, credibility, intelligence, charisma, and so forth—to arrive at a net evaluation of how rewarding it is to interact with the other. This net
evaluation forms the valence continuum. If a celebrity moves in close, that is rewarding. If an obnoxious loudmouth does, that is nonrewarding.
Some characteristics may be positive and others negative. It is the combination of all the assessments that a target makes of the initiator/violator
that places the initiator/violator along the rewardingness continuum from extremely positive to extremely negative. The rewardingness of the
initiator plays a significant role in a target's reactions when expectations are met or unmet.
Unmet expectations are expectancy violations; met expectations are expectancy confirmations. Expected distances are not a precise point but
rather a range of distances. If the initiator of a distance passes the invisible threshold that bounds what the target expects for conversational
distance, then a violation has occurred. Violations of the close kind cross a threat threshold: the point at which another's proximity instills a
sense of discomfort and possible threat. The more a violation departs from the expected pattern, the larger the effect. Whether it is a positive or
negative effect will depend on how the initiator's reward valence is evaluated (positive or negative) and whether the violation penetrates the
invisible boundary that marks the point whether the target feels threatened. The second proposition formalizes the role of reward valence of the
violator, the direction of deviation (closer or farther away than expected, which may include crossing the threat threshold) and the magnitude of
deviation in predicting whether consequences will be favorable or unfavorable.
Proposition 2: The communication outcomes of an interaction are a function of the rewardingness of the initiator, the direction of deviations
from expectations, and the magnitude of deviation.
Three other relevant concepts are arousal‐distraction, the interpretation‐evaluation appraisal process, and violation valence. EVT proposes that
violations are physiologically and/or psychologically arousing, distracting attention from what is being said and drawing it toward the violation.
This assumption is grounded in other theories and research showing that humans attend to anomalous and novel stimuli, even if they only
register such atypical occurrences unconsciously. The appraisal process describes what targets of a violation do to make sense of it. The
interpretation part refers to assigning meaning to the violation, if it is deemed to have meaning rather than being accidental. Evaluation refers to
whether the violation is judged as desirable or undesirable. A target may judge an initiator's (violator's) approach as an attempt to win the
target's approval. If an approach from that initiator is welcome, the violation is evaluated favorably; if an approach from that target is unwelcome,
it gets a negative evaluation. Whether it is welcome or not is influenced by the rewardingness of the violator. An approach by a shy but well‐liked
friend will be evaluated favorably and qualify as a positive violation. If the approach is from an ex‐fiancé or ex‐fiancée, it may be evaluated
negatively and qualify as a negative violation.
Conversational distance is an ambiguous nonverbal behavior that can take on multiple meanings. Propositions 3 and 4 address alternative
interpretations and evaluations that can be attributed to it. Proposition 5 focuses expressly on the interpretation of extremely close proximity, and
how its threat potentially depends on the reward value of violator. The wording of these propositions has been simplified here. Subsequent
revisions of the theory also dropped the threat threshold, based on the results of field and laboratory experiments.
Proposition 3: When distancing is perceived as a statement of initiator's regard for the target, closer proximity is interpreted as positive regard,
and farther distance is interpreted as negative regard; when distancing is equated with threat, closer proximity is perceived as more threatening
and farther distance as less threatening.
Proposition 4: Extremely close proximity is perceived as aversive and produces discomfort.
Proposition 5: The more rewarding the initiator, the closer the location of the threat threshold.
The remaining propositions predict and explain how violations and confirmations produce positive or negative communication outcomes. The
theory says that both confirmations and violations can be classified as positive or negative, that is, there are four kinds of outcomes.
Positive confirmations occur when the proxemic pattern is expected and initiated by a favorably regarded interactant. A parent sitting next to a
child on a sofa would be an example. Negative confirmations occur when the proxemic pattern is expected but committed by someone who is
negatively regarded. A nosy, talkative aunt sitting down near her nephew on a sofa might qualify. Positive violations occur when a favorably
regarded initiator adopts a distance that is closer than expected, such as when a romantic partner snuggles up close to his date on the sofa.
Negative violations occur when a nonrewarding initiator chooses a distance that deviates substantially from the expected distance. A disliked
“touchy‐feely” uncle sitting right next to his niece on a sofa would be an example.
Violations need not be a case of coming too close. A loved one who moves farther away than usual would be a negative violation. The valence
of the violation is therefore not due solely to the rewardingness of the violator but to the combination of the meaning ascribed to the distance and
the evaluation associated with both the act and the actor. Consider a well‐respected supervisor who approaches a supervisee to chat. If she
stands two feet away, and the supervisee interprets close proximity as a message of liking, and the supervisee views liking from the supervisor
as desirable, the distance will constitute a positive violation. If the same well‐respected supervisor instead adopts a farther‐than‐usual distance,
and the employee interprets a far distance as disinterest and views such a message as undesirable, the act will be a negative violation.
However, because distancing is ambiguous and can be ascribed a variety of meanings, the employee may instead interpret the detached
distance as a sign of the supervisor's preoccupation with work and a further sign of how important the supervisor is. In this way, a potentially
negative interpretation can be neutralized.
The theory culminates in predictions about how confirmations and violations affect communication outcomes such as attraction, liking, credibility
persuasion, and learning. This is where EVT departs from traditional views of all violations as negative. It predicts that positive violations
produce better outcomes than positive confirmations, and negative violations produce worse outcomes than negative confirmations. Translated
into advice on effective communication, and contrary to the usual advice to learn what is expected and match that, EVT predicts that it is better
to commit a violation than to do what is expected, as long as it is a positive violation. Communicators who have high reward value have the best
(though not the only) possibility of committing a positive violation because their reward value improves the chances of their actions being
interpreted and evaluated favorably. Communicators with low reward value are better off conforming to expectations because there is a chance
that deviations either closer or farther away may be interpreted or evaluated negatively.
The remaining propositions spell out these predictions. They have been recast and abbreviated here because after initial field and laboratory
tests, not only was the concept of the threat threshold dropped but the theory was also expanded to apply to a wide variety of other nonverbal
behaviors. The propositions reflect more generic wording that applies to nonverbal behaviors generally and is now often referred to as nonverbal
expectancy violations theory.
Proposition 6: Violations are more tolerated and preferred by rewarding communicators than nonrewarding ones.
Proposition 7: The valence of a nonverbal act and its violation status interact such that:
1. Positive expectancy violations achieve better communication outcomes than positive confirmations.
2. Negative expectancy violations achieve worse communication outcomes than negative confirmations.
3. Positive expectancy violations and confirmations achieve better communication outcomes than negative expectancy confirmations and
violations.
7. Uses and Gratification Theory
Visual Credited to: writingtheorypaper.com
The Uses and Gratification theory discusses the effects of the media on people. It explains how people use the media for their own need and get
satisfied when their needs are fulfilled. In other words, it can be said that the theory argues what people do with media rather than what media
does to people. Also, this theory is in contradiction to the Magic Bullet theory, which states that the audience is passive. This theory has a
user/audience-centered approach. Even for communication, say – interpersonal, people refer to the media for the topic to discuss among
themselves. By referring the media, they gain more knowledge and exposure to the world beyond their limited eyesight.
There are several needs and gratification for people. They are categorized into five needs.
Cognitive needs
Affective needs
Personal Integrative needs
Social Integrative needs
Tension free needs
Cognitive needs:
People use media for acquiring knowledge, information, facts, etc. Among the audience, some have the thirst to acquire intellectual and
academic knowledge. This is not a very common phenomenon. Different people have different needs. For example, quiz programs on television
give on factual knowledge; to know about current affairs people need to watch the news regularly; search engines on the internet are also very
popular since people can browse for any topic easily under the run with no time restriction.
Affective needs:
It includes all kinds of emotions, pleasure and moods of the people. People use media; say television, to satisfy their emotional needs.
The best example would be when people get emotional or sometimes even they cry for a sad scene while watching the movie/soap opera.
Personal Integrative needs:
This is the self-esteem need. People use media to reassure their status, gain credibility and stabilize. So people watch television and assure
themselves that they have a respectable status in society. For example, people watch advertisements in the media like jewelry ads, furniture
ads, apparel ads, etc. and buy these products so that they can change their lifestyle. Hence the media helps them to do so.
Social Integrative needs:
It encompasses the need to socialize with family, friends and relations in society. For social interaction nowadays, people do not seem to gather
socially during weekends instead they have turned to social networking sites on the internet such as Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr etc. to
satisfy their needs.
Another example is people may start watching a particular programme, not because they have any self interest, but because their
neighbor/friend watches it such that both the parties may have something in common to discuss.
Tension free needs:
People sometimes use the media as a means to escapism from the real world and to relieve from tension and stress.
For example, people tend to relax while watching television, listening to the radio, surfing the internet, etc. In fact, media has the power to grab
audience mind since it makes them feel connected with the situation and characters emotionally.
Note: The needs are specific in nature to the individual and how the media satisfies the need is subjective. For example, some people may
watch the news to relax while others may get tensed or agitated by the same. The media is the same, but people use it for different needs.
On television, most people watch reality shows nowadays not only its popular, but because of the following reasons:
It is more realistic.
It provides entertainment.
It is more interesting.
There are new concepts cropping up every now and then.
Viewers can participate as well in many ways while sitting at home.
Controversies are extensively covered.
Sensationalism brings in more viewers.
However, Vinney (2019) in her article published in thought.com, she explains further the different assumptions and research application of this
theory:
Assumptions
Uses and gratifications theory relies on two principles about media users. First, it characterizes media users as active in their selection of the
media they consume. From this perspective, people don’t use media passively. They are engaged and motivated in their media selections.
Second, people are aware of their reasons for selecting different media options. They rely on their knowledge of their motivations to make media
choices that will help them meet their specific wants and needs.
On the basis of those principles, uses and gratifications goes on to outline five assumptions:
Media use is goal-directed. People are motivated to consume media.

Media is selected based on the expectation that it will satisfy specific needs and desires.
Media influence on behavior is filtered through social and psychological factors. Thus, personality and social context impact the media
choices one makes and one’s interpretation of media messages.
Media are in competition with other forms of communication for an individual’s attention. For example, an individual may choose to have
an in-person conversation about an issue instead of watching a documentary about the issue.
People are usually in control of media and therefore are not particularly influenced by it.
Taken together, uses and gratifications theory stresses the power of the individual over the power of the media. Individual differences mediate
the relationship between media and their effects. This results in media effects being driven as much by the media user as by the media content
itself. So, even if people take in the same media message, each individual will not be impacted by the message in the same way.
Uses and Gratifications Research
Uses and gratifications research has uncovered several motivations people often have for consuming media. These include force of habit,
companionship, relaxation, passing the time, escape, and information. In addition, a newer body of research explores people’s use of media to
meet higher order needs like finding meaning and considering values. Studies from a uses and gratifications perspective have involved all kinds
of media, from radio to social media.
TV Selection and Personality
Uses and gratifications' emphasis on individual differences has led researchers to examine the way personality impacts people’s motivations for
using media. For example, a study by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University looked at personality traits like neuroticism and
extroversion to see if people with different traits would identify different motivations for watching television. The researcher found that the
motivations of participants with neurotic personalities included passing the time, companionship, relaxation, and stimulation. This was the
reverse for participants with extraverted personalities. Moreover, while the neurotic personality types favored the companionship motive most,
extraverted personality types strongly rejected this motive as a reason to watch TV. The researcher judged these results to be consistent with
these two personality types. Those who are more socially isolated, emotional, or shy, demonstrated an especially strong affinity for television.
Meanwhile, those that were more sociable and outgoing saw TV as a poor substitute for real-life social interactions.
Uses and Gratifications and New Media
Scholars have noted that new media includes several attributes that weren’t part of older forms of media. Users have greater control over what
they interact with, when they interact with it, and more content choices. This opens up the number of gratifications that new media use could
satisfy. An early study published in the journal CyberPsychology & Behavior on uses and gratifications of the internet found seven gratifications
for its use: information seeking, aesthetic experience, monetary compensation, diversion, personal status, relationship maintenance, and virtual
community. Virtual community could be considered a new gratification as it has no parallel in other forms of media. Another study, published in
the journal Decisions Sciences, found three gratifications for internet usage. Two of these gratifications, content and process gratifications, had
been found before in studies of the uses and gratifications of television. However, a new social gratification specific to internet use was also
found.
These two studies indicate that people look to the internet to fulfill social and communal needs.
Research has also been conducted to uncover the gratifications sought and obtained through social media use. For instance, another study
published in CyberPsychology & Behavior uncovered four needs for Facebook group participation. Those needs included socializing by staying
in touch and meeting people, entertainment through the use of Facebook for amusement or leisure, seeking self-status by maintaining one’s
image, and seeking information in order to learn about events and products. In similar study, researchers found that Twitter users gratified their
need for connection through the social network. Increased usage, both in terms of the amount of time one had been active on Twitter and in
terms of the number of hours per week one spends using Twitter, increased the gratification of this need.
Criticism of Uses and gratification theory :
The uses and gratification theory does not bring into consideration the power of media.
It is more audience-oriented study.
Positive point of the uses and gratification theory is it focuses attention on individuals in the mass communication process.
It mainly focuses on people’s selectivity on media content rather than its unintended effects in their minds.
Researches of this theory conclude the results are subjective rather than objective.
8. Media Dependency Theory
Visual Credited to: researchgate.com
Sandra Ball-Rokeach and Melvin DeFleur proposed the “Dependency theory” in 1976. The theory is combined with several perspectives like
psycho analytics & social system theory, systematic & casual approach and base elements from Uses and Gratification theory but less focus on
effects. Media Dependency theory is one of the theories, first of its kind which regards audience as an active part in communication process.
The dependency theory is expanded from the theory of Uses and Gratification.
According to this theory, there is an internal link between media, audience and large social system. The audience learning from the real life is
limited, so they can use media to get more information to fulfil their needs. An extensive use of media generates dependent relation in audience.
Also Media can able to create dependence relationship with target audiences to achieve their goals by using its media power.
The degree of dependence is directly proportional to:
Individual: The media have ability to satisfy the audience needs. An individual will become more dependent on media, if the medium satisfy
his/her needs. Otherwise the media dependence will become less
Social Stability: The audience reconsider their beliefs, practice and behaviours when strong social change, conflicts, riot or election which
will force to re-evaluate and make new decisions. During this period media dependency is dramatically increased, because there is a strong
need for information, support and advice
Active audience: In this communication process, the active audience chooses the media dependence on their individual needs and other
factors such as economic conditions, society and culture. If alternative source fulfil the audience needs, then it will reciprocally decrease the
media dependence
Process of Creating Dependence:
Media attracts individuals by offering the content which is able to fulfil the audience needs for understanding, entertainment and information
There is much difference in the level of strength in Dependence relationship. Cognitive motivations encourage the individuals to maintain the
level of attention and Affective motivation serves the individuals to enhance the level of satisfaction
Both Cognitive and Affective motivation are intensifying the audience to higher level of involvement to enable the information process
Critics of Media Dependency Theory:
It describes the media role during social changes and crisis
Theory is more flexible and descriptive
Power of media dependency is not clearly described
It’s difficult to prove scientifically or experimentally
9. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort
leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the
earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their
homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen.
While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience," committed
members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the
faithfulness of the cult members).
How Attitude Change Takes Place

Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and behavior in harmony and avoid
disharmony (or dissonance). This is known as the principle of cognitive consistency.
When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.
Notice that dissonance theory does not state that these modes of dissonance reduction will actually work, only that individuals who are in a state
of cognitive dissonance will take steps to reduce the extent of their dissonance.
The theory of cognitive dissonance has been widely researched in a number of situations to develop the basic idea in more detail, and various
factors that have been identified which may be important in attitude change.
What causes cognitive dissonance?
1. Forced Compliance Behavior,
2. Decision Making,
3. Effort.
Forced Compliance Behavior

When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don't want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I
didn't want to do this) and their behavior (I did it).
Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs. The behavior can't be changed,
since it was already in the past, so dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude to what they have done. This prediction
has been tested experimentally
In an intriguing experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg
board for an hour). As you can imagine, participant's attitudes toward this task were highly negative.
Aim
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance
behavior.
Method
In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board
for an hour).
They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the
participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.
Results
When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and
enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.
Conclusion
Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that
dissonance by coming to believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs, and
there is therefore no dissonance.
Decision Making
Life is filled with decisions, and decisions (as a general rule) arouse dissonance.
For example, suppose you had to decide whether to accept a job in an absolutely beautiful area of the country, or turn down the job so you
could be near your friends and family. Either way, you would experience dissonance. If you took the job you would miss your loved ones; if you
turned the job down, you would pine for the beautiful streams, mountains, and valleys.
Both alternatives have their good points and bad points. The rub is that making a decision cuts off the possibility that you can enjoy the
advantages of the unchosen alternative, yet it assures you that you must accept the disadvantages of the chosen alternative.
People have several ways to reduce dissonance that is aroused by making a decision (Festinger, 1964). One thing they can do is to change the
behavior. As noted earlier, this is often very difficult, so people frequently employ a variety of mental maneuvers. A common way to reduce
dissonance is to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and to decrease the attractiveness of the rejected alternative. This is
referred to as "spreading apart the alternatives."
Brehm (1956) was the first to investigate the relationship between dissonance and decision-making.
Method
Female participants were informed they would be helping out in a study funded by several manufacturers. Participants were also told that they
would receive one of the products at the end of the experiment to compensate for their time and effort.
The women then rated the desirability of eight household products that ranged in price from $15 to $30. The products included an automatic
coffee maker, an electric sandwich grill, an automatic toaster, and a portable radio.
Participants in the control group were simply given one of the products. Because these participants did not make a decision, they did not have
any dissonance to reduce. Individuals in the low-dissonance group chose between a desirable product and one rated 3 points lower on an 8-
point scale.
Participants in the high-dissonance condition chose between a highly desirable product and one rated just 1 point lower on the 8-point scale.
After reading the reports about the various products, individuals rated the products again.
Findings
Participants in the high-dissonance condition spread apart the alternatives significantly more than did the participants in the other two
conditions.
In other words, they were more likely than participants in the other two conditions to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and to
decrease the attractiveness of the unchosen alternative.
Effort
It also seems to be the case that we value most highly those goals or items which have required considerable effort to achieve.
How is cognitive dissonance resolved?
Dissonance can be reduced in one of three ways: a) changing existing beliefs, b) adding new beliefs, or c) reducing the importance of the
beliefs.
Change one or more of the attitudes, behavior, beliefs, etc., to make the relationship between the two elements a consonant one.
When one of the dissonant elements is a behavior, the individual can change or eliminate the behavior.
However, this mode of dissonance reduction frequently presents problems for people, as it is often difficult for people to change well-learned
behavioral responses (e.g., giving up smoking).
Acquire new information that outweighs the dissonant beliefs.

For example, thinking smoking causes lung cancer will cause dissonance if a person smokes.
However, new information such as “research has not proved definitely that smoking causes lung cancer” may reduce the dissonance.
Reduce the importance of the cognitions (i.e., beliefs, attitudes).

A person could convince himself that it is better to "live for today" than to "save for tomorrow."
In other words, he could tell himself that a short life filled with smoking and sensual pleasures is better than a long life devoid of such joys. In
this way, he would be decreasing the importance of the dissonant cognition (smoking is bad for one's health).
Critical Evaluation
There has been a great deal of research into cognitive dissonance, providing some interesting and sometimes unexpected findings. It is a
theory with very broad applications, showing that we aim for consistency between attitudes and behaviors, and may not use very rational
methods to achieve it. It has the advantage of being testable by scientific means (i.e., experiments).
However, there is a problem from a scientific point of view, because we cannot physically observe cognitive dissonance, and therefore we
cannot objectively measure it (re: behaviorism). Consequently, the term cognitive dissonance is somewhat subjective.
There is also some ambiguity (i.e., vagueness) about the term 'dissonance' itself. Is it a perception (as 'cognitive' suggests), or a feeling, or a
feeling about a perception? Aronson's Revision of the idea of dissonance as an inconsistency between a person's self-concept and a cognition
about their behavior makes it seem likely that dissonance is really nothing more than guilt.
There are also individual differences in whether or not people act as this theory predicts. Highly anxious people are more likely to do so. Many
people seem able to cope with considerable dissonance and not experience the tensions the theory predicts.
Finally, many of the studies supporting the theory of cognitive dissonance have low ecological validity. For example, turning pegs (as in
Festinger's experiment) is an artificial task that doesn’t happen in everyday life.
Also, the majority of experiments used students as participants, which raise issues of a biased sample. Could we generalize the results from
such experiments?
This is probably because dissonance would be caused if we spent a great effort to achieve something and then evaluated it negatively. We
could, of course, spend years of effort into achieving something which turns out to be a load of rubbish and then, in order to avoid the
dissonance that produces, try to convince ourselves that we didn't really spend years of effort, or that the effort was really quite enjoyable, or
that it wasn't really a lot of effort.
In fact, though, it seems we find it easier to persuade ourselves that what we have achieved is worthwhile and that's what most of us do,
evaluating highly something whose achievement has cost us dear - whether other people think it's much cop or not! This method of reducing
dissonance is known as 'effort justification.'
If we put effort into a task which we have chosen to carry out, and the task turns out badly, we experience dissonance. To reduce this
dissonance, we are motivated to try to think that the task turned out well.
A classic dissonance experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrates the basic idea.
Aim
To investigate the relationship between dissonance and effort.
Method
Female students volunteered to take part in a discussion on the psychology of sex. In the 'mild embarrassment' condition, participants read
aloud to a male experimenter a list of sex-related words like 'virgin' and 'prostitute.'
In the 'severe embarrassment' condition, they had to read aloud obscene words and a very explicit sexual passage. In the control condition,
they went straight into the main study. In all conditions, they then heard a very boring discussion about sex in lower animals. They were asked
to rate how interesting they had found the discussion, and how interesting they had found the people involved in it.
Results
Participants in the 'severe embarrassment' condition gave the most positive rating.
Conclusion
If a voluntary experience which has cost a lot of effort turns out badly, dissonance is reduced by redefining the experience as interesting. This
justifies the effort made.
To further understand the topic, let us all watch this video of Dr. Philip Zimbardo as he discusses a lesson in Cognitive Dissonance.
A Lesson In Cognitive Dissonance
10. Social Penetration Theory
Visual Credited to: slideshare.com
Social Penetration Theory

At a party, one observes various levels of interpersonal communication. At an open table, new acquaintances exchange names and share their
musical preferences. A couple on their second date chats about their political views. Long-time friends discuss their feelings about a difficult
family situation. Meanwhile, a married couple sits quietly, making only occasional comments about the other guests and chuckling in agreement.
Another couple, stewing in anger, sits away from the other guests, refusing to speak to each other.
Social Penetration Theory explains these differences in communication in relation to the depth of interpersonal relationships. Developed in 1973
by psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, the theory states that relationships begin and deepen through self-disclosure. In the
beginning, people establish relationships by disclosing many simple, harmless facts through small talk. As relationships grow, the rate of self-
disclosure slows while the facts disclosed become increasingly intimate in nature. Intimate self-disclosure allows others to penetrate a person’s
public persona and discover his or her innermost self. Relationships stagnate when the people involved refuse to self-disclose.
Stages of Self-Disclosure
Altman and Taylor first described the process of self-disclosure as peeling back the layers of an onion, which possess both breadth and depth.
“Breadth” refers to the various facets of a person’s life, such as work, family, community and hobbies. “Depth” pertains to the details concerning
each of these areas. The outer layers of the onion represent superficial information about a person, such as physical appearance and speech.
The deeper layers represent more intimate information, such as the person’s thoughts, feelings and relationships with others. As a person self-
discloses to a friend or partner, she peels away the outer layers of her self toward exposing her core nature. Altman and Taylor outlined the
various stages of intimacy that result from this process of self-disclosure:
1. Orientation Stage — Also known as the “small talk” or “first impression” stage. Communicators become acquainted by observing
mannerisms and personal dress and by exchanging non-intimate information about themselves. Interaction adheres to social norms.
2. Exploratory Affective Stage — Communicators begin to reveal more about themselves, such as their opinions concerning politics and
sports teams. Deeply personal information is withheld. Casual friendships develop at this stage, and most relationships stay at this level.
3. Affective Stage — Communicators begin to disclose personal and private matters. Personal ways of speaking, such as using idioms or
unconventional language, is allowed to come through. Communicators feel comfortable enough to argue or criticize each other. Romantic
relationships develop at this stage.
4. Stable Stage — Communicators share a relationship in which disclosure is open and comfortable. They can predict how the other person will
react to certain types of information.
5. Depenetration — Occurs when one or both communicators perceive that the cost of self-disclosure outweighs its benefits. Communicators
withdraw from self-disclosure, thus ending the relationship.
Progress through these stages is usually linear at first but may become cyclical later. Psychologists say intimate relationships can switch stages
at different times—moving, for example, from the stable stage to the exploratory effective stage and back again—as partners work through their
insecurities and reservations.
Reward-Cost Assessment
Self-disclosure results in vulnerability, and becoming vulnerable to another person can carry significant costs. Therefore, the extent to which a
person chooses to self-disclose depends upon the outcome of a reward-cost assessment. In a reward-cost assessment, communicators weigh
the risks of self-disclosure against its potential rewards. Sharing personal information can strengthen relationships, increase physical and
emotional intimacy and open new lines of communication with a partner. However, if a partner were to react badly to the information, betrayal,
mistrust and separation could result. When deciding whether to disclose personal information, communicators consider factors such as trust,
loss of privacy, the longevity of the relationship and previous reactions from former partners in similar instances. As long as the rewards
outweigh the costs, information is shared.
Reward-cost assessments become more critical and frequent as relationships deepen and the risks of self-disclosure rise. The assessments’
outcomes determine the volume and types of information, if any, a person will share with a partner. When the costs of self-disclosure exceed the
potential rewards, self-disclosure stops and the relationship stalls.
Barriers to Self-Disclosure
Several factors can affect the amount of self-disclosure between partners: gender, race, religion, personality, social status and ethnic
background. For example, some cultures, like the Japanese, value personal privacy more than others. Therefore, a Japanese person may not
self-disclose nearly as much or as enthusiastically as, say, a French person. Partners who come from different religious backgrounds may
hesitate to share thoughts or attitudes that concern matters of faith. Men often refrain from expressing deep emotions out of fear of social
stigma. Such barriers can slow the rate of self-disclosure and even prevent relationships from forming. In theory, the more dissimilar two people
are, the more difficult or unlikely self-disclosure becomes.
Applications
Social Penetration Theory is being used in today’s modern world to study electronic interactions on the Internet through social media sites and
chat rooms. On the one hand, people who meet online are often unable to predict how a person will react to certain types of information, making
the cost of self-disclosure difficult to evaluate. On the other hand, the impersonal nature of communicating through a screen may mitigate the
cost of sharing intimate information, thus making self-disclosure more likely. Theorists in this field have observed a variety of outcomes with
online interactions, highlighting a need for more study to turn Social Penetration Theory into a more predictable model.
11. Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Initially introduced in 1975 by Charles R. Berger and Richard J. Calabrese, Uncertainty Reduction Theory offered a “theoretical perspective for
dealing with the initial entry stage of interpersonal interaction” in which uncertainty is common, and suggested a set of “research priorities” for
future scholars to further test the theory. Within the initial entry stage of interpersonal interaction, an exchange of information regarding a
person’s “sex, age, economic or social status, and other demographic” indicators typically occurs and is “controlled by communication rules and
norms” (University of Twente, n.d.). Berger and Calabrese (1975) “initially presented [Uncertainty Reduction Theory] as a series of axioms,” or
universal truths that typically do not require proof to be accepted, to “describe the relationships between uncertainty and several communication
factors” in dyadic exchanges (University of Twente, n.d.).
Further research did indeed answer Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) research priorities and significantly expanded Uncertainty Reduction
Theory’s explanatory power in areas such as verbal and nonverbal communication, intimacy, reciprocity, and information-seeking behavior. For
example, assuming that the communicative interaction is in person and longer than a fleeting moment in a public space, Uncertainty Reduction
Theory researchers suggest that people will use a “variety of sources when collecting information to reduce their uncertainty” (Floyd, 2017;
Whaley & Samter, 2013).
On the other hand, Shraddha Bajracharya has explained Uncertainty Reduction Theory in her article published in Businesstopia, February 17,
2018:
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
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
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.
Motivation to reduce uncertainty
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.
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.
To understand further this topic, let us all watch this video -- Dr. Charles Berger on Uncertainty Reduction Theory, interview conducted by Em
Griffin, author of A First Look at Communication Theory. Find more resources on this and other communication theories at
www.afirstlook.com.
Charles Berger on Uncertainty Reduction Theory
12. Social Exchange Theory
Visual Credited to: sicc.instructure.com
Social exchange theory is a model for interpreting society as a series of interactions between people that are based on estimates of rewards and
punishments. According to this view, our interactions are determined by the rewards or punishments that we expect to receive from others,
which we evaluate using a cost-benefit analysis model (whether consciously or subconsciously).
Overview
Central to the social exchange theory is the idea that an interaction that elicits approval from another person is more likely to be repeated than
an interaction that elicits disapproval. We can thus predict whether a particular interaction will be repeated by calculating the degree of reward
(approval) or punishment (disapproval) resulting from the interaction. If the reward for an interaction exceeds the punishment, then the
interaction is likely to occur or continue.
According to this theory, the formula for predicting the behavior of any individual in any situation is:
Behavior (profits) = Rewards of interaction – costs of interaction.
Rewards can come in many forms: social recognition, money, gifts, and even subtle everyday gestures like a smile, nod, or pat on the back.
Punishments also come in many forms, from extremes like public humiliation, beating, or execution, to subtle gestures like a raised eyebrow or a
frown.
While social exchange theory is found in economics and psychology, it was first developed by the sociologist George Homans, who wrote about
it in a 1958 essay titled "Social Behavior as Exchange." Later, sociologists Peter Blau and Richard Emerson further developed the theory.
Basic Assumptions of Social Exchange Theory
People who are involved in the interaction are rationally seeking to maximize their profits.
Most gratification among humans comes from others.
People have access to information about social, economic, and psychological aspects of their interactions that allow them to consider the
alternative, more profitable situations relative to their present situation.
People are goal-oriented in a freely competitive system.
The exchange operates within cultural norms.
Social credit is preferred over social indebtedness.
The more deprived the individual feels in terms of an act, the more the person will assign a value to it.
People are rational and calculate the best possible means to compete in rewarding situations. The same is true of punishment avoidance
situations.
Critiques
Many critique this theory for presuming that people always make rational decisions, and point out that this theoretical model fails to capture the
power that emotions play in our daily lives and in our interactions with others. This theory also undercuts the power of social structures and
forces, which unconsciously shape our perception of the world and our experiences within it, and play a strong role in shaping our interactions
with others.
Let us study the Theoretical and Core Principles of Social Exchange Theory, the article was published in psychology.iresearchnet.com:
Theoretical Background and Principles of Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory is based on the idea that people seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs in any given social relationship. Rewards
can consist of anything tangible or intangible that an individual considers valuable. For instance, business relationships may provide several
concrete benefits, such as income or material goods, in addition to several more abstract benefits, such as prestige and a sense of security.
Costs include anything that an individual considers to be unrewarding or sees as requiring a significant amount of time or effort. For example,
romantic relationships may involve costs such as shared housework and spending vacations with one’s in-laws (which, for some people, can be
extremely unpleasant). Of course, the evaluation of rewards and costs is highly subjective because that which is rewarding for one individual
might not be quite as rewarding for another person. Similarly, that which is considered rewarding in one relationship might not be perceived as
rewarding in a different social involvement.
People’s evaluations of perceived rewards and costs influence how satisfied they are with their relationships and the relative stability of those
relationships. Satisfaction with a relationship is determined by considering one’s outcome comparison level (i.e., the standard by which one
judges his or her current relationship’s outcomes). For instance, a person may compare his or her current outcomes with those he or she has
received in a past relationship of a similar type. So, you might compare how things are going now with your current boyfriend or girlfriend with
how things went with past romantic partners. To the extent that a person’s current outcomes exceed his or her previous outcomes, the person
is satisfied with a relationship and desires it to continue. However, if a person’s current outcomes don’t compare favorably to his or her
previous outcomes, the person becomes dissatisfied and is less likely to work at furthering the relationship. People compare their current
outcomes not only to past outcomes but also to those that they could be receiving now in other potential relationships (referred to as the
comparison level for alternatives). To the extent that the outcomes people perceive as possible within an alternative relationship are better
than those that they are receiving in their current relationship, they are less likely to continue in the current relationship.
Reward-to-cost ratios and comparison levels are subject to change over time, as individuals continually take stock of what they have gained
and lost in their relationships. This implies that relationships that a person found satisfying at one point in time may become dissatisfying later
because of changes in perceived rewards and costs. This may occur because certain factors may become less rewarding or more costly over
time. For instance, sex may be extremely rewarding for members of a newly married couple but may become less so as passion and
spontaneity decrease over the years.
Finally, people’s perceptions of their relationships also depend on whether the exchanges that occur are viewed as equitable. Equitable or fair
exchanges are necessary to avoid conflict between relationship partners. For instance, assume that there is favorable exchange for all parties
involved in an ongoing relationship, but one party is receiving substantially greater benefits than the other. Such a scenario may be perceived
as unfair because distributive justice is not present (i.e., outcomes are being distributed unequally). In this case, individuals with worse
outcomes may feel exploited and have negative feelings about their exchange partner, which may ultimately affect how committed they are to
continuing the relationship.
13. QUIZ
CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO TAKE THE QUIZ.
14. FORUM
CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO ANSWER THE FORUM.
15. References
Griffin, E. (2014). A First Look at Communication Theory 9th. McGraw Hill Publishing
Littlejohn, S.W, and Foss, K. A (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. London: SAGE
Woods, J., (1997) Communication Theories in Action, an Introduction. SAGE
Communication Theories Retrieved from https://www.communicationtheory.org
Understanding Media and Culture by University of Minnesota (PDF)

Module 4 - Theories of Individual Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 - Theories of Individual Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/19/2021 Module 4 - THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

Module 4 - THEORIES OF INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

Site: New Era University Printed by: Aron C. Perales

3. Magic Bullet / Hypodermic Needle Theory

4. Two-Step Flow Theory

5. Reinforcement Theory or Limited Effect Theory

6. Expectancy Violation Theory

7. Uses and Gratification Theory

8. Media Dependency Theory

9. Cognitive Dissonance Theory

10. Social Penetration Theory

11. Uncertainty Reduction Theory

12. Social Exchange Theory

Visual Credited to: audiopedia.com

At the end of the module, students should be able to:

Magic Bullet / Hypodermic Needle Theory

3. Magic Bullet / Hypodermic Needle Theory

4. Two-Step Flow Theory

Visual Credited to: communicationtheory.org

5. Reinforcement Theory or Limited Effect Theory

Visual Credited to: mediastudies.com

The Reinforcement Theory | Media in Minutes | Episode 4

6. Expectancy Violation Theory

Expectancy violation theory

There are two types of expectancies

Expectancy in people is determined by three factors

Key concepts and predictions

Proposition 4: Extremely close proximity is perceived as aversive and produces discomfort.

7. Uses and Gratification Theory

Visual Credited to: writingtheorypaper.com

Personal Integrative needs:

Tension free needs:

Media use is goal-directed. People are motivated to consume media.

Uses and Gratifications Research

TV Selection and Personality

Uses and Gratifications and New Media

Criticism of Uses and gratification theory :

8. Media Dependency Theory

Visual Credited to: researchgate.com

The degree of dependence is directly proportional to:

Process of Creating Dependence:

Critics of Media Dependency Theory:

It describes the media role during social changes and crisis

Theory is more flexible and descriptive

It’s difficult to prove scientifically or experimentally

9. Cognitive Dissonance Theory

How Attitude Change Takes Place

What causes cognitive dissonance?

1. Forced Compliance Behavior,

Forced Compliance Behavior

How is cognitive dissonance resolved?

Acquire new information that outweighs the dissonant beliefs.

Reduce the importance of the cognitions (i.e., beliefs, attitudes).

A Lesson In Cognitive Dissonance

10. Social Penetration Theory

Visual Credited to: slideshare.com

Social Penetration Theory

11. Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Assumptions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

People feel uncertain in initial interpersonal communication.

Core concepts of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Uncertainty reduces as the feelings of approval between individual increase.

Motivation to reduce uncertainty