COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE COVER PAGE FOR COPIES MADE BY

THE NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY (NWU)

This material has been copied for educational use. It is not for resale and must not be redistributed.

KOPIEREGKLARING-DEKBLAD VIR KOPIEË GEMAAK DEUR

DIE NOORDWES-UNIVERSITEIT (NWU)

Hierdie materiaal is vir opvoedkundige gebruik gereproduseer. Dit mag nie herverkoop of verder
versprei word nie.
 EN CYCLOPEDIA OF

COMMUNICATION
THEORY
Editorial Board
General Editors
Stephen W. Littlejohn Karen A. Foss
University of New Mexico University of New Mexico

Editorial Board
Brenda J. Allen Charlotte Kroløkke
University of Colorado Denver University of Southern Denmark
J. Kevin Barge Mark P. Orbe
Texas A&M University Western Michigan University
Roger de la Garde James Taylor
Laval University University of Montreal
Lisa A. Flores Ingrid Volkmer
University of Colorado Boulder University of Melbourne
Vijai N. Giri
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
 E N CYCL OP E D I A O F

COMMUNICATION
THEORY

Stephen W. Littlejohn Karen A. Foss

University of New Mexico
E D I T OR S
958 Traditions of Communication Theory
example, living things are organized into a giant
taxonomy of types, including many levels of sub-
types (phylum, genus, species, etc.). Underlying this
elaborate taxonomy, however, is a set of ideas that
explains how species evolve and relate to one another
genetically, and this forms the basis of similarities
and differences in the living world. As another
example, personality theories often identify types or
traits, but should not stop at this point. They should
instead provide some kind of explanatory connec-
tion between types and outcomes such as behavior
or input variables such as heredity or learning.
In the natural sciences, explanations are usually
causal. Events that occur previously in time are
shown to determine states or events that occur
later in time. Causality is a preferred explanation
in many fields because it permits prediction, which
is taken as the ultimate test for a theory’s validity.
When a causal connection is established through
prediction beyond reasonable doubt, it assumes
the status of a law. A covering law is an accepted
causal connection across a wide spectrum of
events. Theories that rely on covering laws and
causal explanation are nomothetic, or general
across all cases, rather than idiographic, or specific
to particular ones.
Causal explanations abound in the social sci-
ences, but in a sharp departure from the norms of
natural science, many social theories rely on practi-
cal explanations in which individuals are shown to
make choices to achieve goals. Using practical
explanations, practical theories offer principles for
making decisions about the effectiveness and appro-
priateness of various actions in social situations.
Most social science disciplines such as commu-
nication consist of numerous communities of schol-
ars that have rather different philosophical
approaches to the subject of theory. One example
is the distinction among interpretive, critical, and
positivist approaches found in several social-science
fields. The type and function of theory within these
schools of thought can vary significantly along sev-
eral dimensions. For example, some scholars adhere
to a strictly scientific, discovery-oriented epistemol-
ogy, or way of knowing, while others are more
constructionist in their beliefs about the role of
theory. Many stake a claim on the representational
ontology of theory—its assumptions about reality—
while others see theory as a useful tool. For many,
a good theory is always value free, but for others it
can never be and indeed, should be clear about
espousing particular values.
Stephen W. Littlejohn
See also Metatheory; Philosophy of Communication;
Traditions of Communication Theory
Further Readings
Anderson, J. (1996). Communication theory:
Epistemological foundations. New York: Guilford
Press.
Chaffee, S. H. (1996). Thinking about theory. In
M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated
approach to communication theory and research
(pp. 15–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San
Francisco: Chandler.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of
human communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L.
(2004). How to build social science theories.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Theory of Reasoned Action
See Reasoned Action Theory
Time
See Chronemics
Traditions of
Communication Theory
Communication theory is a field of thought that is
rich in diverse ideas, but lacks coherence. There is
no universally agreed upon general theory of com-
munication. There are, by some ways of counting,

hundreds of different communication theories.
These theories not only focus on different aspects
of communication (such as persuasion, media, or
intercultural communication), but often they are
based on incompatible metatheories—that is, con-
flicting assumptions about communication and
even the very idea of theory. Because there is no
consensus on a theory or a set of core theories,
textbooks continue to define the field in various
ways and cover different sets of theories. Advanced
research is fragmented into different theoretical
approaches with relatively little discussion about
those differences.
It can be argued that the field of communication
theory would be more productive if theorists work-
ing in different areas were more attentive to relevant
ideas in other areas. For this purpose it is helpful to
have an overview of the field that covers both the
variety of approaches as well as points of debate or
possible convergence among approaches. This entry
provides such an overview. The following sections
discuss how the field of communication theory
originated, how theories of communication have
developed in several distinct intellectual traditions
that offer contrasting views of communication
problems, and the current trends in the field.
Emergence of Communication
Theory as a Field
Although some traditions of communication the-
ory, such as rhetoric and semiotics, are much older,
the term communication theory was not widely
used until the 1940s, and initially it had little to do
with those older theoretical traditions. The term
first appeared in electrical engineering, where it
referred to mathematical theories of signal coding,
transmission, and processing that could be used, for
example, to optimize the channel capacity of tele-
phone lines. Despite their rather technical nature,
these theories attracted widespread interest among
social scientists and others who saw them as a
possible basis for a new science of communication
with important social applications. Two influential
books that contributed to this trend were Claude
Shannon and Warren Weaver’s The Mathematical
Theory of Communication and Norbert Wiener’s
Cybernetics. Words like information, noise, and
feedback, which had precise technical meanings in
Traditions of Communication Theory 959
these theories, were borrowed by other fields and
soon entered the common language, albeit with less
precise meanings. The interest in these theories
reflected a spreading belief, in the wake of World
War II, that improvements in human communica-
tion were urgently needed to prevent war and
address other social problems.
In line with that generally rising concern with
communication problems, social scientific communi-
cation research was also growing rapidly in the
1940s and beginning to gain recognition as an inter-
disciplinary field. Research and theoretical writings
on communication were scattered across numerous
academic disciplines, including not only the engi-
neering theories just mentioned, but also among
others, philosophical theories of language and mean-
ing, psychological theories of persuasion and verbal
behavior, sociological theories of group and mass
communication, and rhetorical theories of public
discourse and speech communication. Scholars began
referring to this collection of ideas from many disci-
plines as communication theory, and some argued
that communication might eventually become a sci-
entific discipline in its own right by building a new,
integrated field of theory on this broad foundation.
As they gleaned relevant ideas from other disci-
plines, communication scholars began to see the
history of those ideas as strands of their own field’s
history. Although the field had existed in name for
only a few years, it could claim lines of ancestry
going back thousands of years, for example, to
ancient Greek theories of rhetoric and poetics. In
retrospect, we can see that the idea of communica-
tion has emerged more or less independently in
several traditions of thought that have contributed
to different modern disciplines and still have yet to
be integrated as a coherent whole—a field of com-
munication theory—that is clearly more than the
sum of its parts. When the traditions of communi-
cation theory are examined in this light, it becomes
apparent that each tradition provides a useful
perspective on communication problems and that
the differences among the traditions raise ques-
tions for reflection and debate across the field.
Communication theory may, therefore, achieve a
kind of intellectual coherence, not by reaching uni-
versal consensus on one grand theory, but by pro-
moting dialogue and debate across the diverse
traditions of communication theory.
960 Traditions of Communication Theory
Seven Traditions of
Communication Theory
Seven major traditions that have contributed to the
present field of communication theory. Each is
sketched briefly in the following paragraphs with
regard to its history, how it characteristically
defines communication and frames communication
problems, and its salient differences from other
traditions. Experts in these traditions may well
regard these descriptions as simplistic or outdated,
but it is important to see them in light of their
intended purpose. These sketches are not intended
to represent the complexity of current thinking in
each tradition. Rather, they are intended to center
each tradition in a perspective that is both highly
traditional and clearly distinguishes it from other
traditions. To illustrate how the traditions can be
used to illuminate communication problems, fam-
ily communication problems will be used as a run-
ning example.
Rhetoric
Rhetoric, the oldest tradition of communication
theory, grew out of practices of oratory and debate
in the democratic polis (city-state) in ancient Greece
and was first theorized in writings of the sophists,
Plato, and Aristotle. Classical Roman rhetoricians,
especially Cicero, further elaborated the art of
rhetoric in treatises that influenced rhetorical edu-
cation for many centuries to come. Rhetorical the-
ory has a complex history, and recent work has
departed from the classical tradition in important
ways, yet rhetorical theory’s most distinctive con-
tribution to the larger field of communication the-
ory continues to be an idea at the heart of the
classical tradition: the concept of rhetoric, or com-
munication more generally, as a practical art of
discourse. In this tradition, communication is a
practice that requires skill and good judgment in
deciding what to say in challenging situations, some
people are better (more artful) communicators than
others, and the art of communication can be culti-
vated by practice and criticism based on systematic
principles. With regard to our example of problems
in family communication, a rhetorical perspective
highlights the ways in which artful communication
is needed in family life, whether in parenting, nego-
tiating family relationships, or managing conflicts.
For example, a child coming out as gay may face
rhetorical challenges discussing this with some
family members, and rhetorical arguments used in
the current rhetoric about sexuality in society
are likely to influence what is said in those family
discussions.
Semiotics
A second tradition of communication theory is
semiotics, the study of signs. Semiotic theory con-
ceptualizes communication as a process that relies
on systems of signs (including language and all
kinds of nonverbal codes) to share meaning across
the gaps between subjective viewpoints. Because
we can never know directly what other people sub-
jectively think or feel, all communication relies on
the use of signs. For semiotic theory, communica-
tion problems are misunderstandings or uncon-
scious differences in meaning that can be influenced
by the nature of semiotic codes and particular ways
of using signs. Modern semiotic theory began with
the 17th century English philosopher John Locke,
who wrote that communication requires attaching
clear ideas to words. The late 19th century American
pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce and the
early twentieth century Swiss linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure founded distinct schools of semiotic the-
ory. Peirce analyzed the cognitive functions of
signs and distinguished different types of signs
(icon, index, and symbol). Saussure analyzed the
systematic structure of language and other sign
systems as social phenomena. More recently, post-
structuralist semiotic theories have held that signs
have unstable and contestable meanings. In con-
trast to rhetoric, semiotic theory is more concerned
with problems of meaning than problems of what
to say. For example, family communication about
sexuality may be affected by generational differ-
ences in the meanings of signs that are commonly
used to express gender and sexual identities.
Negotiating identities in the family may depend on
better understanding the different codes involved.
Phenomenology
A third tradition—the phenomenological—
conceptualizes communication as the experience of
self and other in dialogue. The problem of com-
munication for phenomenology, as for semiotics,

arises in the gaps between subjective viewpoints:
One cannot directly experience another conscious-
ness, and the potential for intersubjective under-
standing is thereby limited. Whereas semiotics
looks to the meanings of signs in approaching this
problem, phenomenology looks to the authenticity
of our ways of experiencing self and other. Barriers
to communication can arise from self-unawareness,
nonacceptance of difference, or strategic agendas
that preclude openness to the other. German phi-
losophers Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and
Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) were key figures in
phenomenology. Martin Buber, Hans-Georg
Gadamer, Emanuel Levinas, and Carl Rogers
contributed different theories of dialogue and oth-
erness, all sharing an emphasis on authentic self-
expression and openness to difference. Applying
this phenomenological perspective to problems in
family communication highlights, for example,
that modern people live busy lives, and family rela-
tionships can become so minimal or routine that
members cease to experience each other as unique
individuals. No one really pays attention to what
Mom is thinking these days or how Melinda’s
sense of herself as Latina is changing as she strug-
gles through high school. In contrast to rhetoric’s
focus on communicative strategies and semiotics’
focus on signs and meanings, phenomenological
theory emphasizes the need for people to turn
toward one another, as Buber would put it, and
experience self and other in genuine dialogue.
Cybernetics
Fourth, a cybernetic tradition of communication
theory grew from those mid-20th century theories
in electrical engineering mentioned earlier. A rela-
tively new tradition, even though it originated the
field of communication theory, cybernetics concep-
tualizes communication as information processing.
All complex systems, including computers and
other electronic devices, DNA molecules, plants
and animals, the human brain and nervous system,
social groups and organizations, and whole societ-
ies, process information, and in that sense commu-
nicate. Cybernetic theory downplays the differences
between human communication and other kinds of
information processing systems. Information stor-
age, transmission, and feedback, network struc-
tures, and self-organizing processes occur in every
Traditions of Communication Theory 961
sufficiently complex system. Problems of commu-
nication can arise from glitches in information
processing such as positive feedback loops that
amplify noise. The anthropologist Gregory Bateson
and a group of therapists known as the Palo Alto
Group developed a cybernetic theory of relation-
ships and family systems in the 1950s and 1960s.
They analyzed relationships as patterns of interac-
tion and feedback that tend to maintain themselves
regardless of what the individuals involved might
intend. For example, a couple can get stuck in a
nag-withdrawal pattern or one of escalating con-
flicts. From a cybernetic point of view, family com-
munication problems are not essentially problems
of what to say (rhetoric), or the meaning of signs
(semiotics), or lack of authenticity (phenomenol-
ogy); instead, they are unwanted patterns of inter-
action that can be difficult to change except by
disrupting the family system in some way.
Social Psychology
Social psychology, a fifth tradition of communi-
cation theory, conceptualizes communication as
social interaction and influence. Communication
always involves individuals with their personality
traits, attitudes, emotions, and cognitive processes.
These psychological factors affect the communica-
tion process, often with little awareness by com-
municators of the underlying causes at work.
Influence occurs among individuals and on larger
scales through mass media. The practical problem
of communication from a sociopsychological per-
spective is how to use communication variables
effectively, based on scientific research, to achieve
preferred outcomes. Social scientific communica-
tion research has always been closely identified
with social psychology, so it is not surprising that
classic mid-20th century theories of group dynam-
ics (Kurt Lewin), persuasion (Carl Hovland), and
cognitive dissonance (Leon Festinger) were quickly
absorbed into communication theory and were
joined by many later theories either borrowing
from psychology or originated by communication
scholars. From a sociopsychological perspective,
problems of family communication are indicated
by outcomes such as low marital satisfaction or
destructive family conflict that can be attributed in
part to communication variables. For example, a
couple might seek training to learn about the
962 Traditions of Communication Theory
causes of marital satisfaction and techniques
they can use to improve their communication, thus
increasing their satisfaction. Like the rhetorical
tradition, sociopsychological theory is concerned
with effective communication. However, rhetoric
is a humanistic tradition that emphasizes moral,
aesthetic, and rational judgments of what is said in
particular situations, whereas social psychology is
a scientific tradition that emphasizes understand-
ing the causes that statistically determine commu-
nication outcomes.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural communication theory, which
derives from sociological and anthropological
thought, is a sixth tradition. Charles H. Cooley
and George H. Mead were early 20th century
American sociologists who contributed impor-
tantly to this tradition. Sociocultural theory
conceptualizes communication as a process of
interaction that produces and reproduces shared
meanings, rituals, and social structures. There is a
tension in sociocultural theory between macro and
micro approaches. Macro approaches begin with
society as a whole and show how society functions
through communication while at the same time,
stable social structures and cultural patterns are
also necessary for communication to be possible.
Micro approaches begin with everyday social inter-
action and show how meanings and social rela-
tions are created, maintained, and altered in local,
moment-to-moment communication. From either
view, communication is involved with the coordi-
nation of activities among individuals and groups,
and communication problems become evident
in difficulties and breakdowns of coordination.
Returning to the example of family communica-
tion, sociocultural communication theory frames
problems in ways that relate families to larger
social structures and cultural communities. How to
talk to one’s kids about the use of illegal drugs,
family generational conflicts about preserving eth-
nic cultural traditions, or the need for family ritu-
als to provide occasions for interaction are family
communication problems that arise from forces in
the larger society beyond those individual families.
By the same token, each family must construct its
own meanings and patterns of interaction within
that larger social context.
Critical Theory
The seventh and last tradition of communication
theory to be presented is that of critical theory,
which defines communication as discursive reflec-
tion or discourse in which the implicit assumptions
behind what is said—such as whether an assertion
is really true or whether a particular way of speak-
ing is appropriate—can be freely questioned and
discussed as needed to achieve genuine mutual
understanding. Communication that prevents this
open questioning of assumptions is defective from a
critical perspective, and critical theories argue that
power structures in society prevent genuine com-
munication by systematically excluding the voices
of less powerful groups or otherwise thwarting dis-
cursive reflection. This interpretation of critical
theory is due to Jürgen Habermas, a German social
theorist who developed the key concept of system-
atically distorted communication and the contrast-
ing concept of ideal speech situation, which describes
a situation in which discursive reflection is possible.
The tradition of critical theory can be traced to Karl
Marx (1818–1883), who argued that dominant
ideologies like capitalism reflect the interests of the
ruling classes and bolster the economic status quo
in society. The Frankfurt School critical theorists of
the 1930s were not orthodox Marxists, but contin-
ued to critique the effects of capitalist ideology on
culture and communication. Recent critical theory
includes newer schools of thought such as critical
cultural studies, feminism, and postcolonial theory
that largely reject Marxism, but continues to pursue
the goal of promoting emancipation and enlighten-
ment by lifting ideological blinders that perpetuate
social oppression. Applications of critical theory to
family communication problems would emphasize
the ways in which unquestioned assumptions about
race, class, gender, and sexuality distort the com-
munication process in families. Even the very idea
of a family needs to be questioned from a critical
standpoint, as debates over the legitimacy of homo-
sexual marriages illustrate.
Current Trends
The traditions of communication theory are con-
stantly evolving. Indeed, an advantage of thinking
about theories in relation to intellectual traditions is
that we can see more clearly what each new theory
contributes and how it builds upon or rejects

elements of earlier theories. Moreover, intellectual
traditions are not walled off from one another.
Traditions influence each other over time and may
splinter, merge, or combine in new ways. Current
thinking on communication often integrates ideas
from different traditions in a creative process that
contributes to innovation in the field. Current theo-
ries draw from various traditions and often cannot
be classified neatly in any one of them. Post­
structuralist theory, for example, draws from both
semiotics and phenomenology, is often regarded as a
kind of rhetorical theory, and has significantly influ-
enced recent sociocultural and critical theories.
The future of communication theory cannot be
known with certainty, but new or previously unrec-
ognized traditions of communication theory may
now be emerging to prominence. One is a pragma-
tist tradition that defines communication as a plural-
istic community oriented to the need for cooperation
under conditions of diversity and interdependence.
There are also indications of a feminist tradition that
defines communication as an embodied connected-
ness to others that implicates gendered meanings
and identities. Finally, there has recently been
much discussion of non-Western communication
theories—theories based on Asian, African, and other
cultural traditions that challenge the Eurocentric
bias of the current field and suggest entirely differ-
ent ways of theorizing communication.
Robert T. Craig
See also Critical Theory; Cybernetics; Metatheory;
Philosophy of Communication; Semiotics and
Semiology; Rhetorical Theory; Theory
Further Readings
Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory:
Epistemological foundations. New York: Guilford Press.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field.
Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.
Craig, R. T. (2007). Pragmatism in the field of
communication theory. Communication Theory, 17,
125–145.
Craig, R. T., & Muller, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Theorizing
communication: Readings across traditions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dance, F. E. X. (Ed.). (1967). Human communication
theory: Original essays. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Trait Theory 963
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of
human communication (8th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Mattelart, A. (1996). The invention of communication
(S. Emanuel, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Mattelart, A., & Mattelart, M. (1998). Theories of
communication: A short introduction (J. A. Cohen &
S. G. Taponier, Trans.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of
the idea of communication. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Schiller, D. (1996). Theorizing communication: A history.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Trait Theory
Trait theory, having had an important impact on
communication research, constitutes one of the
main approaches to the study of human commu-
nication. Trait theory holds that people tend to
exhibit certain communication styles and predicts
that these traits make one communicate in a cer-
tain way. The characteristics of the trait approach
arise from the very definition of a trait—a stable
predisposition to exhibit certain behaviors. Human
beings are conceived of primarily as bundles of
predispositions that are relatively stable across
time and across specified contexts.
The dispositional approach to personality tries
to find those psychological characteristics that stay
relatively constant for a person over time and
across various situations. Roughly speaking, the
trait approach to communication places the locus
of action in the predispositions of individuals to
initiate action or to react to behavior. Trait studies
have looked at such tendencies as avoiding com-
munication, persuasibility, self-esteem, dogmatism,
Machiavellianism, cognitive complexity, and need
for social approval.
In recent years, many personality theorists have
reduced the range of variables to certain, more
parsimonious super traits, derived from factor
analysis. Resulting theories identify exact numbers
of superfactors. Two superfactor theories are
commonly adopted—Eysenck’s three-factor model
(consisting of extraversion, neuroticism, and
psychoticism) and Digman’s five-factor model