| Home | Audio Magazine | Stereo Review magazine | Good Sound | Troubleshooting |
|
During the last decade, the outpouring of scientific research on human communication has increased at a staggering rate. This burst of research activity is due to the ever-widening usage of the term "communication" and to a declaration of vested interest in communication research by numerous scientific disciplines. One review of developments in the field lists more than twenty academic disciplines which currently provide content and method for research on some phase of human interaction.' The physical sciences contribute to the study of communication largely by way of technical subfields bearing the headings of cybernetics, in formation theory, and general systems theory. The social sciences embrace the inclusive interests of anthropologists, who define culture as communication, and the most specialized investigations of social psychologists, who define the relationships between individual and group activity as communication. At the end of the social science spectrum are the investigations of linguists, who describe their work on language structure as part of communication science. Still other approaches to the study of communication cross disciplinary lines of psychology. sociology, speech-communication, political science, journalism and many others. Finally, within another broad field of knowledge, the humanities-particularly rhetoric and philosophy-provide a rich legacy of tradition and doctrine on human interaction. Clearly, then, the so-called "science of human communication" is not, in any strict sense, a single discipline at all. The subject of human communication is rather, as Schramm indicates, an extraordinarily active focus of research investigation and theory. 2 Though astonishingly popular as an object of research, the field of human communication has not established any sharply-defined boundaries or domains.3 Much of the reason for the state of disarray is due to the lack of theoretical integration in the field, a problem noted by Hovland,' Fearing, 5 and others. The pace of research activity in recent years has done little to further specify or de fine the distinctive province of the communication field. One recent review notes the use of twenty-five different conceptions of the term "communication" in cur rent research literature." Investigators have yet to establish a completely acceptable definition of communication.7 Nor do they share agreement as to what is common to the process of human communication. According to Bettinghaus, over fifty different descriptions of the communication process have appeared in print.9 Similar conceptual problems limit the many attempts to formulate a general model of communication. Since the publication of a mathematical model of communication in 1949 by Shannon and Weaver," over fifteen different models have been described in the literature.'" In the absence of any universally acceptable conception of human communication, it is hardly surprising that the field is so often criticized as a "teeming wilderness of facts and notions, instances and generalizations, proofs and surmises . . ." " and as ". . . a jungle of unrelated concepts . . . and a mass of undigested, often sterile, empirical data. . . ." 12 The foregoing discussion has important implications for the student of human communication. For one thing, the student should be prepared to evaluate the topics which embrace the communication field as they arise from a range of academic disciplines and traditions. An exposure to such heterogeneous subject material may contribute to the student's understanding of the extraordinary complexity of human communication, and may lead him to a more balanced perspective. It is equally important to keep in mind the fact that formal fields of knowledge seldom flourish because of the prior existence of a clearly defined set of theoretic principles or propositions. They develop rather out of the particular problems and research interests of those who originally give consideration to the particular field under study. The topics or "content" of such formal disciplines arise, as Roger Brown points out, from specific research investigations and problems, and with comparative independence of those topics encountered in related subfields of knowledge.'3 It would be difficult, for example, to isolate the single principle which separates biophysics from biochemistry, neurology from physiology, social psychology from experimental psychology. The study of human communication, likewise, is a historical development, a core of knowledge, and not a fixed theoretical construct. Hence, our understanding of the dynamics of human interaction must be established, as recognized in a recent symposium on communication theory," facet by facet, concept by concept, dimension by dimension. APPROACH OF THE GUIDE The readings in this guide are designed to provide a core of foundational concepts and a theoretical framework for studying the nature and process of human communication. The topics are broadly based and comprehensive in scope. The readings focus on the inner workings of communication, the common denominators which underlie all modes of human interaction. Gaining an understanding of the dynamics involved in human interaction requires some insight into what hap pens when people communicate, a recognition of the forces which interact to pro duce complex communicative events, and an understanding of what is known about the effects of major variables as they influence specified communicative outcomes. The topics, in other words, do not deal with articular modes of inter action such as rumor, conversation, markings on a wall, speeches and the like. The focus is rather upon the nature and function of the major determinants of communicative acts. 1. Franklin H. Knower. "The present state of experimental speech-communication research," in The Frontiers in Experimental Speech Communication Research, ed. Paul Ried (Syracuse, New York: 1966), p. 21. 2 Wilbur Schramm, "Communication research in the United States," in The Science of Human Communication (New York: 1963), pp. 1-16. 3 The status of the field is reviewed by Lee Thayer, Editor's preface, Communication: Concepts and Perspectives ( Washington, 1967). 4 Carl Hovland, "Social communication," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 92 (1948), 371-375. 5 Franklin Fearing, "Toward a psychological theory of human communication," Journal of Personality, 22 (1953), 71-88. 6 Lee Thayer, "On theory building in communication: some conceptual problems," Journal of Communication, 13 (December, 1963), 217-235. 7 Robert Minter, "A denotative and connotative study in communication," Journal of Communication, 18 (March, 1968), 26-36. 8 Erwin Bettinghaus, Message Preparation: The Nature of Proof ( Indianapolis: 1966), p. 31. 8 Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication ( Urbana: 1949). 10 Raymond Smith, "General models of communication," Communication Research Center, Purdue University (dittoed), 1962. 11 Alfred Smith, Introduction, Communication and Culture (New York: 1966), p. 8. 12 Bruce Westley and Malcolm MacLean, Jr., "A conceptual model for communication research," Journalism Quarterly, 34 (1957), 31-38. 13 Roger Brown, Social Psychology (New York: 1965), p. xx. 14 Lee Thayer, Communication: Concepts and Perspectives, p. iv. The guide also provides a particular orientation for studying human communication, one that is decidedly behavioral and theoretical. Before proceeding, it would be well to consider the sense in which the terms behavioral and theoretical are to be used. A behavioral approach to the study of human communication is essentially a scientific one. What makes a science is not equipment or apparatus, but method and aim. As Homans aptly states, "If it aims at establishing more or less general relationships between properties of nature, when the test of the truth of the relationship lies finally in the data themselves, and the data are not wholly manufactured-when nature, however stretched out on the rack, still has a chance to say `No'--then the subject is a science." 15 Consequently, the broad aim of science is to establish generalizations about nature which are supported by empirical evidence gathered in an impersonal and objective way. Obviously, not all science deals with the lawfulness of the physical world. Among scientists, only social and behavioral scientists study creatures like them selves. Communication scientists, in particular, seek to establish behavioral laws regarding human communication. More specifically, the communication scientist strives, as Miller notes, to formulate statements which refer to regularities in the behavior of senders and receivers in given communication situations." A behavioral approach to human interaction presupposes that when people communicate, they do so totally. Communicative events involve the whole person. This means that communicative behavior cannot be considered as something completely distinct from the determinants of behavior generally: perceptions, learning, drives, emotions, attitudes, beliefs, values, decoding-encoding, meaning, messages, and social situations. Human communication, then, is not a single pro cess, but a composite of processes-a set of complex, on-going forces interacting in a dynamic situational field that has no fixed beginning and no fixed ending. Each activity which influences human communication is in itself a composite of interacting elements. Consider, at one level, the activity of the nervous sys tem. In reference to the interaction of forces within the central nervous system, Lashley writes: . . . theories of neuron interaction must be couched, not in terms of the activity of individual cells, but in terms of mass relations among the cells. Even the simplest bit of behavior requires the integrated action of millions of neurons; . . . I have come to believe that almost every nerve cell in the cerebral cortex may be excited in every activity. . . . Differential behavior is determined by the combination of cells acting together rather than by cells which participate only in particular bits of behavior. 17 15. George Homans, The Nature of Social Science (New York: 1967), p. 4. 16. Gerald Miller, Speech Communication: A Behavioral Approach (Indianapolis: 1966), p. 26. 17. W. Russ Ashby, "The application of cybernetics to psychiatry," Journal of Mental Science, 100 (1954), 116. Add the almost unimaginable complexity of the nervous system to other processes-physical, psychological, and social-and you have some notion of the enormous complexity of forces which underlie the processes of human communication. The orientation of this guide is also, as mentioned earlier, theoretical in nature. This does not mean that the framework constitutes a theory of communication, for such a singular, full-blown theory does not as yet exist. What the readings afford are varying theoretical perspectives which advance specific propositions and relate communication variables to one another within a coherent, explanatory framework. Some of the theories, of course, are more powerful in their predictive and explanatory capacities than others. However, even the less powerful theories are useful, since they reveal assumptions, specify potentially critical connective factors, and postulate certain relationships among elements in the communication process. In other words, theories-even the weaker ones--add clarity and structure to our thinking about the nature of human interaction. And in addition to their organizational and heuristic values, the most powerful theories of communication specify or predict how selected variables will interact in producing specified outcomes, and help to explain why the outcomes occur. Not all the readings in this guide are based upon predictive theory; some do not even explicitly use the word "theory." What all have in common is rather some theoretic base which has proven utility in studying human communication more effectively. 18. Such a definition is similar to that developed at the SAA-USOE Developmental Conference held in New Orleans, February, 1967; and George Gerbner, "Mass media and human communication theory," in Human Communication Theory, ed. Frank E. X. Dance (New York: 1967), p. 43. 19. Frank E. X. Dance, "Toward a theory of human communication," Human Communication Theory, ed. Frank E. X. Dance; New York: 1967), pp. 293-294. FRAMEWORK OF THE GUIDE The term "communication" may be defined as a process by which senders and receivers of messages interact in given social contexts. 8 Implicit in this definition are a number of assumptions about the nature of communication. The very notion of process suggests that the components of interaction are dynamic rather than static in nature and that they cannot be properly regarded as unchanging elements in time and space. Communication, as Dance observes, is something that changes even while one is in the act of examining it. From an interaction standpoint, no single aspect of communication can be meaningfully understood apart from the other constituents of behavior; moreover, changes in one aspect of the process may result in modification of the other workings of communication. 20 Since the on-going changes which we are referring to include the responses of sender and receiver alike, the notion of interaction cannot be considered as a one-way transmission process. Interaction is rather reciprocal in nature, a mutual exchange of conjoint influences, or what Newcomb refers to as the co-orientation of each communicator toward the other party and the object of their interaction. 21 A process orientation has important implications for the way in which the theoretical concepts in this guide should be considered. For example, the message linkage between sender and receiver is not to be thought of as a separate entity, but rather as a changing object of orientation by the communicators. The particular object of the interaction may remain relatively constant or may shift rap idly to include, say, a gesture, a marking, a command, a threatening nonverbal cue, a tension release-perhaps followed by a verbal agreement which culminates in a signature. In other words, a message consists of any communication variable which operates to link the interaction between communicators, one which affects in a relatively simultaneous way the responses of all of those engaged in communication. Thus as individual perception of the situation changes, the type of linkage shifts concomitantly. In a similar way the social context itself may be considered in functional terms as an integral aspect of the interaction, rather than simply being regarded as the "location" or "setting" in which communication takes place. Human interaction never occurs in a vacuum. In short, a process orientation requires a conception of communication theory which is sufficiently comprehensive to account for all individual and social determinants of a given communicative act. 20. Cf. Introduction, The Language of Social Research, ed. Paul Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (New York: 1955), pp. 15-18; Jurgen Ruesch, "Synopsis of the theory of human communication," Psychiatry, 41 (August, 1953), 220-221. 21. Theodore M. Newcomb, "An approach to the study of communicative acts," Psychological Review, 60 (1953), 393-404. 22. The limitations of singular theories of communication are now readily acknowledged in the literature. Cf. Lee Thayer, Communication and organizational theory, and Dell Hymes, "The anthropology of communication," in Human Communication Theory, pp. 1-39, 70-115; John Newman, "A rationale for a definition of communication," Journal of Communication, 10 (1960), 115-124; Lawrence Frank, in Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior, ed. Ray Grinker (New York: 1956), p. 40. 23. Joost Meerloo, "Communication and mental contagion," in Communication: Concepts and Perspectives, pp. 1-23. The literature on communication theory does not as yet offer a theory of human interaction, at least in any singular sense of the term; but it does afford a core of specific theories which pertain to various communicative processes. 22 Each constituent theory contributes something akin to what the psychiatrist Meerloo describes as a "probing action" around the subject, that is, a comprehensive theoretical orientation from different angles and from varying perspectives. 22 Therefore, the framework of readings will focus upon four inter-related yet somewhat distinct dimensions of theory: (1) communication as a stern of behavior, (2) communication as decoding-encoding activity, (3) communication as interaction, and (4) communication in social context. Each section contains working assumptions, a distinct unit of analysis and, hopefully, a useful way of approaching and understanding human communication more effectively. From section to section the perspective shifts from an abstract, idealized view of human interaction to the distinctly human aspects (decoding-encoding functions), to specific types of linkages, and finally to the role of the social context in communication. Each theoretical perspective entails great selectivity in what is being singled out for study. Some aspects of communication are invariably omitted in order to maintain a more direct focus upon the operations of some other aspects. It is important, therefore, to remember that the less abstract the unit of analysis, the more detailed will be the information gained. At the same time, however, the more specific the level of detail, the less will be revealed about the relation of the particular object of study to the larger framework. When the focus of discussion, for example, happens to be physiological mechanisms of receiver systems, one may lose sight of the importance of the situation in determining what each per son filters out in his perception of the interaction. It is necessary, then, to remain conscious of the principle of non-elementalism, which insists that no single aspect of human behavior can be properly understood except as it relates to the whole. 24 To obtain some idea of how each of the four theoretical dimensions contributes to the overall foundations of communication theory, it may be useful to consider briefly how each dimension relates to the larger theoretical frame work of the guide. COMMUNICATION THEORY: SYSTEMS A communication system or model consists of an idealized description of what is necessary for an act of communication to occur. A model represents or replicates in abstract terms the essential features and eliminates the unnecessary details of communication in the "real world." Models differ widely, of course, in terms of how they represent human communication. Those models based upon a mathematical conception describe communication as analogous to the operations of an information-processing machine: an event occurs in which a source or sender transmits a signal or message through a channel to some destination or receiver. In the social sciences, however, most communication models describe more than the sending-transmitting-receiving functions; they also replicate such factors as the nature of the interaction, the response to the message, and the con text in which the interaction occurs. By abstracting what is common to all modes of human communication, a systems approach to communication theory provides a frame of reference from which to better understand the workings of all communicative acts. COMMUNICATION THEORY: DECODING-ENCODING BEHAVIOR The human component is of central concern in all of the more "social" systems or models of communication theory. The minimal condition for human interaction of any sort is the maintenance of a more or less constant monitoring of the environment by the individual. This monitoring process consists of the sustaining of certain decoding-encoding Junctions. The essays in this section, there fore, will stress the importance of three interrelated yet somewhat distinct forms of sender-receiver activity: (1) perception or decoding, (2) cognition or interpretation, and (3) response or encoding. COMMUNICATION THEORY: INTERACTION The word "interaction" may be regarded as the process of linkage between senders and receivers of messages. This linkage process does not consist of the discrete action of individual elements working under separate powers; nor is it simply to be considered as a sort of balancing action of one element with another in causal connection. The process specifies interaction or linkages between or among countless factors, each functioning conjointly, so that changes in any one set of forces affect the operation of all other processes to produce a unique and total effect. Theoretically, almost any behavioral condition could influence the linkage process. A gesture, a predisposition, a connotation, a drive, an attitude, conflict, proximity of persons, poor eyesight, tension, group pressures to con form, trustworthiness--virtually any number of factors may play some part in determining the total communicative outcome. Some of the most important factors which influence the interaction of senders and receivers of messages are examined in the essays of this section. These include pre-dispositional personality factors, source credibility, states of cognitive consistency or inconsistency, the nature and role of attitudes, and selected message variables. COMMUNICATION THEORY: SOCIAL CONTEXT Human communication is in no small measure influenced by the social con text in which it occurs. The context or "encompassing situation" as Brockriede calls it, consists of an elaborate set of implicit conventions and rules which govern the origin, flow, and effects of messages. In urban life this on-going flow of communication is constantly changing as a consequence of the ever-widening variety of social settings available for social organization. In this regard Cox likens urban life to the activity of a vast and complicated switchboard where man is the communicator and the metropolis is a massive network of possibilities for communication. 25 Such a picture should serve as a reminder that the concept of social context must extend to far more than simply the effects of the immediate situation upon human interaction. The articles in this section first show how the immediate social setting influences communication in various small groups and then extend the concept of context to cover more inclusive situations in which in formation is transmitted from reference group to reference group and from sub culture to sub-culture. 24. Cf. Edward Mysak, Speech Pathology and Feedback Theory (Springfield, Illinois: 1966), pp. 20-21. |
|
Top of Page | Index | Home |