Symbolic Convergence Theory

Symbolic convergence theory, or SCT, is this attention-grabbing communication theory that explains group cohesiveness through dramatized messages.  Dramatized messages depict imaginative “then-and-there” language (past or present) instead of “here-and-now”.  Accordingly, SCT classifies this form of communication as “outside-events” that often serve the group well.  Examples of dramatizing messages include: wordplay, double entendre, figure of speech, analogy, anecdote, allegory, fable, narrative, or other creative expression of ideas; in other words, fantasies (shared interpretations that fulfills a group’s psychological or rhetorical needs).  When a fantasy theme is agreed-upon it sparks a fantasy chain in which an explosion of agreement reaches within a group in response to a member’s dramatizing message.  This chain thus triggers symbolic cues which are defined as agreed-upon triggers that set off group members to respond as they first did when the initial fantasy was first shared.  As such, fantasy types/effectiveness determine the cohesiveness of successful group communication.  However, SCT is not limited to small groups. Instead, it can reach public levels like societal groups that idealize similar values and beliefs.  These bigger groups can share DM’s to strengthen group cohesiveness. 

A premium example to explain SCT furthermore can be seen in business around the globe.  Lets dissect businesses into their different departments.  Say that accounting receives the least amount of funds.  While in a meeting about increasing success and effectiveness, a group member or leader decides to dramatize a message about the lack of funds in the past and jokes about the future, “even if we don’t get too many funds I’m sure our department will help this business climb the highest mountains”.  Certain members may or may not cue into the fantasy chain, but if members grasp the symbolism (consisting of shared emotions, motives, and meanings) than they will cue in to the joke and feed the chain.  Thus the effective and symbolic communication between employees will lead to group cohesion.

Here is a video in Skyfall where "M" promotes a dramatized message about the fantasies of national security and the irrelevancy of MI6 during a court scene at 0:20.  The committee/group then cues in when a shootout unfolds in the court house. Surely, there was enough symbolic convergence to increase group cohesion within the British criminal justice system depicted in the movie.

Communication Metatheory: Objective vs. Interpretive

Understanding that communication contains countless theories is vital to purposeful and decisive communication.  A person a can use theories to their benefit in any given situation, but grasping and understanding their true theoretical assumptions is key towards befitting the skill into your repertoire.  A great communicator will incorporate different and effective theories into their message, which is why it is essential to understand multiple theoretical assumptions.  However, after exposure towards numerous other theories, a student of communication may soon find it hard to juggle all the theories in their mind without confusion. This is why it is imperative to classify certain theories by their assumptions into two different perspectives: “Objective” and “Interpretive”.

Objective approaches are in fact “objective-based”.  Here are a few theories classified under the objective perspective: Uncertainty Reduction Theory, Social Judgment Theory, Social Information Processing Theory, and Expectancy Violations Theory.  By looking at each theories name you can acquire some sort of description/assumption of how each theory are objective-based, in other words goal-oriented.  Now what makes a “good” objective theory?  Well, it must first go beyond the collection of data and explain why, be relatively simple, predict future events (mirror reality), be practical and useful, have quantitative research with empirical evidence, and contain a testable hypothesis. 

However, interpretive approaches are the exact opposite.   They differ because they clarify value and assign meaning to communicative messages, and assume that there are multiple meanings or truths rather than one singular truth (objective).  Interpretive approaches help find new understandings of people and offers fresh insight into the human condition.  A few example theories of the interpretive perspective include: Cultural Approach, Critical Theory of Communication Approach, Symbolic Interactionism, and Relational Dialectics.

Personally speaking, I do find myself being more of an objective scholar rather than an interpretive scholar.  I see more value in objective-based theories since they can be goal-oriented which gathers me to believe that a seasoned objective-based communicator can control any given conversation and lead it into the direction he/she desires.   

A Communicative-Perspective: ELM, Cognitive Dissonance, and Persuasion in Argumentation/debate

Communication has always been a natural occurrence within the human race.  We were all born with voices to tell stories, give orders, persuade, and if we were lucky enough sing.  Sometimes however, when conflict emerges we use these voices to argue in the hopes of resolution.  To specify, argumentation is indeed a process of communication that we are all known to.  The argumentation-process is said to have a persuasion aspect where one person tries to persuade another into justifying the opposite’s opinion/message.  The most intriguing part of argumentation is its channel of persuasion.  Effective communication is persuasive, for example: politicians argue, or rather, debate all the time by channeling persuasion into their messages/propositions.  When we argue or debate issues with another individual we process messages.  This aspect of processing is called the Elaboration Likelihood Model where two specific types of processing contribute to the retention of a certain message.  The two types of message processing are the central route and the peripheral route.  You could even say that message retention may contribute to persuasion, which again is effective communication.  The peripheral route is where the masses of what we hear are processed and not stored for long-term memory.  The central route is where we apply cognitive effort and carefully attend to important messages that are then stored for long-term use.  Argumentation/Debate if practiced appropriately is centrally routed according to the ELM because it requires able attention and able motivation.  However, when two conflicting opinions collide theories like Cognitive Dissonance and Selective Exposure come into play alongside the ELM. Cognitive dissonance is defined as the distressing mental state that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other existing opinions they hold.  For example, imagine an individual who knows the entirety about the health issues that smoking can cause yet still smokes which inevitably gives his/her child lung cancer due to second-hand smoking.  When arguing/debating with their spouse, their spouse will predictably express opinions that will cause mental distress or cognitive dissonance in the individual that smoked.  For natural reasons, this distress or discomfort will want to be avoided which is where selective exposure becomes significant.  Selective exposure is almost self-explanatory but is defined as the avoidance of situations that are likely to cause dissonance and acts as a preventive measure.  Politicians experience selective exposure and cognitive dissonance frequently while in a debate. 

Of course it wouldn’t be much of a blog without a signature Bond video depicting the theories we’ve just learned.  Here is a video where Bond attempts to read the body language of the villain in a very significant poker game.  According to the ELM, Bond processes his opponents bluff and body language centrally by applying cognitive effort and attention to his reads.  Cognitive dissonance begins to occur when Bond believes his opponent is bluffing but isn't a hundred percent sure.  This distress causes selective exposure in his reads triggering Bond to debate against himself.  Ultimately Bond decides to go “all-in” and loses everything.  

From a communicative-perspective, his opponent used effective and purposeful communication through the use of non-vocal persuasion and interpersonal-influence to defeat Bond.  Enjoy! 

Expectancy Violations Theory: Bond's at it again!

Ever been in an awkward situation? Whether the outcome was positive or negative chances are you and the rest of the world have.  These situations are caused by the theory that is “Expectancy Violations Theory”.  Based on social norms, we expect certain situations to play out relative to those norms that we are accustomed to.  For instance, communication follows an easy predictive pattern when people act in the manner that we would expect, but when people violate these/our expectations we are forced to re-evaluate how to communicate in that given situation.  These expectations however, that are based off of social norms, are dependent upon context, relationship factors, and communicating characteristics like saying hello. 

To help demonstrate with “Expectancy Violations Theory” here’s a very comical clip of a conversation between Bond and his nemesis Bardem in the movie Skyfall.

Notice how Bardem (Bond’s antagonist) violates Bond’s expectations soon after they meet face to face, Bardem becomes extremely touchy for a bad guy in a Bond movie, forcing Bond to re-evaluate how to communicate (body-language included).  Stereotypically, bad guys usually keep their distance from Bond unless they have a weapon of some sort.  However, the most telling depiction of the “Expectancy Violations Theory” in this clip, and my favorite part, is when Bond gets a rise out of Bardem with his own demonstration at (1:15) which certainly is a positive reaction, or value, placed upon Bond’s intentional and unexpected remark. Awkward situation? I think not!

Cognitive Complexity and the predictive theory that is "Constructivism"

Now that we are past the introduction, I would like to explain to you guys what the theme of my blog will illustrate; “Purposeful Communication”.  Communicating with other human individuals is what makes OUR world go round.  Truly, it’s how we meet our future husbands/wives, climb the corporate ladder, or even discuss politics with our friends.  Indeed it is important, but only if it is used purposefully.  Thus, a person usually needs some form of education to purposefully communicate while striving for their desired goals relative to communicating with other individuals.  In essence, a person needs a well-developed, complex, and open mind; a person with this kind of mindset has “Cognitive Complexity”.  A person having cognitive complexity has the ability to distinguish subtle personality and behavioral differences among people.  Simply, they have outstanding social perception skills, or rather, the ability to craft person-centered messages in the appropriate contexts and manner.  With cognitive complexity, we have the ability to predict and adjust our responses and communication dependent upon the progression of a conversation.  Being able to distinguish personality and behavioral differences among different people gives an anticipatory factor to preemptively mold where we want to take the conversation.  Now, theoretically speaking, a person’s ability to communicate skillfully in social situations is called “Constructivism”.  Constructivism is a predictive theory that increases with age and education.  To demonstrate cognitive complexity, within the framework of Constructivism, here is a clip of James Bond in Casino Royale.  Please pause and take the time to read the notes on the screen during the short video. (Note* James Bond, having superior cognitive complexity/communication skills, will progressively help to demonstrate the themes and theories of my blog as we dig deeper into Purposeful Communication)

Firstly, I hope you enjoyed the short video and caught all the sharp and quick demonstrations of Constructivism that James Bond skillfully portrayed.  Having never conversed with the female individual, James Bond is oblivious to her personal constructs.  Yet, he is quick to distinguish her personality and behavioral differences and slowly adjusts the conversation to where he wants it to go, through the use of anticipatory-centered-messages and effective body language (00:53-2:30).  However, being educated and female, she wittily equals Bond, maybe even one-upping Bond, in the same way by judging his personal constructs through the use of her Cognitive Complexity (2:30-4:10)...  Note to self, females tend to have higher Cognitive Complexity.

Now, here is a diagram to help you with Constructivism and Cognitive Complexity:

Cognitive Complexity à Sophisticated message plan (or predictive/anticipatory message planning) à  Relaying person-centered messages (in one’s desired context to attain goals for the conversation) à Successful communication (once goals have been attained or certainly reached).

Post 1: Dipping my toes in the water

“The name’s Bond, James Bond”- as memorable and simple as this quote may seem, it is in fact, the quintessential standard for why I'm studying communication.  My dream, since childhood, has always been to become a cop, detective, or a “spy”; in other words, one of those bad-ass-good-guys with a firearm and a voice as tools.  No, I’m not power hungry or violently mannered.  In fact, I've always had the eye for protecting the peace, which is why post-graduation I will be in the Navy.  Currently, I am double majoring in Psychology and Sociology while shooting for a minor in Communication. Now here's how I see it, Sociology will give me the ability to judge my suspects fairly, Psychology will help me understand and outsmart my suspects wittily, and Communication will allow me to interrogate and talk to my suspects purposefully.  Perhaps not as smooth and prowess as the Englishmen Daniel Craig himself, but I will shoot for the sky(fall).

Anyways, people like to call me Byron Rombaoa, and thus I have stuck with it since birth.  I’m 21 years young and I live in Corvallis, Oregon.  Currently, I go to school at Oregon State University, which is a great university that adheres to education and football.  Yes, I’m all about football but basketball is truly the sport that I can’t ever get enough of.  Being born and raised in the great city of Portland, I've been a Trail Blazer fan all of my life; and so far it’s been an up and down relationship between the Blazers and I.  More about myself, I thoroughly enjoy watching movies, specifically when it’s free or during class (especially when it's during class) I'm Filipino, and this is my first official blog to hit the world wide web! I'm coming for you world!

In conclusion, if you want to be James Bond study communication.