2. 2 Loic Youth
SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY (SPT)
Social Penetration theory (SPT) is a theory founded by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor “to
explain how relational intimacy develops both in romantic and platonic relationships” (N. Pennington,
2008, p.6).This theory looks at how we use self-disclosure to deepen and broaden our familiarity with
others. Self-disclosure is the process of sharing experiences, beliefs, attitudes and values with other
people in the hope that they do the same and both parties can get to know each other more. The different
personality structures between people is the reason for disclosure. We are not all the same so to be able to
know and understand each other, we deepen and broaden our knowledge of each other. Some personality
structures are disclosed at first encounter such as our name, our grade or what school/university we
attend. Other personality structures should normally come after more disclosure such as marital status,
religious beliefs and such. When it comes to disclosing and interacting, we can choose to end our interest
in another person after just one encounter or we can continue this relationship. There is the comparison
level which is a threshold above which an interpersonal relationship is attractive and we want to keep it.
Comparison level of alternatives is whether we should carry on with this person or not (Griffin, 2012).
Self-disclosure is how much we share with one another and it can be both deep and broad. Depth in self-
disclosure, is how much one shares with another on a specific topic. So for example, the parties getting to
know each other might really like a sports team and always talk about it. That shows a lot of depth.
However,the breadth of disclosure is the range of topics which are talked about. So the more the parties
can talk about without interruptions or awkward silences, the more they have disclosed to each other and
know about each other. There are levels to social penetration and people do not just go from strangers to
best friends after a single interaction. It takes some time for social penetration to play out and eventually,
3. 3 Loic Youth
self-disclosure will decrease the more the people involved, get to know each other. This is simply because
they know one another at a personal level so they automatically know if the person is mad, sad, happy and
also know their likes or dislikes.
APPLICATION OF THEORYBYSCHOLARLYJOURNALS
I looked at three different scholarly articles and what they had to say about the theory. The first
article I read was titled Using Students’Prior Knowledge to Teach Social Penetration Theory by Daniel
Chornet-Roses. The study done here was to get students to watch a movie [Before Sunset] that taps into
their personal lives; the movie also showed relationship development through interactions. So in doing
this, the students were exposed to the same message at once and applied that to their lives and what they
knew about developing relationships. The observation was done in steps. First the students were asked to
watch the movie and pay special attention to the relational development between Celine and Jesse [actors
in the movie]. In doing so they had to note the steps of evolution in that relationship and also had to note
down any similarities between the actors and their personal lives. The next step was the professor giving a
class about SPT and explaining the fundamentals of it to the students; “The lecture should also include
some of the critiques accrued about SPT and revisions that Altman, Vinsel, and Brown…” (Chornet-
Roses,2010). The students proceeded to compare their personal relationship developments, what they
saw in the movie and what was just instructed in class. Their final task was to write a reflective paper on
how their views on relationships had changed before and after learning about the theory. So in all, this
author looks at a way of teaching SPT through personal experiences. Social Penetration is usually played
out in everyday life so by using what we do subconsciously, the theory becomes clearer to us after
application.
The second article I looked at was somewhat similar to the first one. It is The Secret Life of your
Classmates: Understanding Social Penetration Theory by J,Nodulman. This method of teaching was by
using anonymous self-disclosure between classmates to see how their relationship changed. This way,
they learned the link between disclosure and how it built relationships. There is a website known as
4. 4 Loic Youth
postsecret.com which the professor Nodulman asked his students to look at, previous weeks before he
taught the theory. Two weeks before class, the students were given an envelope and two notecards on
which to make their own post secret,unanimously of course. Their secret had to be really personal,
something no one else knew and also class appropriate. However, the students were not compelled to do
so if they did not wish to. The day of class, they brought their envelopes. The professor taught the theory
thus highlighting the close link between disclosure and social penetration. The students then had to do an
exercise on how the activity they just did relates to the theory. While they did so, the professor went over
the cards and mixed them up, before putting them all up on a board. The students looked at all the secrets
and had to answer certain questions such as “Were you uncomfortable, surprised or upset with any of the
cards you viewed? Has this assignment changed the way you view your classmates?” (Nodulman, 2009)
and more questions. With the students being exposed to messages that they would not otherwise have
been exposed to, many of them expressed how they thought and felt the same way but would never have
known that because they never spoke to each other on that deeper level. They even went as far as
admitting that they felt closer to their classmates whom before they would not sit next to before that
happened. So the students understood SPT very effectively but it was mainly through relating their
experiences to the theory and seeing how disclosure could make/break a relationship.
The last article I looked at is Influences of Culture on Self-Disclosure as Relationally Situated in
Intercultural and Interracial Friendships froma Social Penetration Perspective by Yea-Wen Chen and
Masato Nakazawa. As you can tell from the names of the authors, they are from two different countries so
they themselves are experiencing what they are talking about. They look at Social Penetration theory and
self-disclosure but look at cultural barriers that affect interactions. The article confirms that “self-
disclosure concepts mean the same thing across all cultures. In other words, self-disclosure patterns may
differ across cultures, but the concept of self-disclosing is equivalent across cultures” (Nakazawa & Chen,
2009). Unlike the first two articles I did, this is more of a research. It is paper that has methods, a
literature review, the settings and more. So their assumption is that regardless of where we are,we are
5. 5 Loic Youth
open to the idea of interacting with others and to get to know people better. How people self-disclose and
how fast they move through relational stages differs culturally however. Also, what people talk about
differs from place to place. In a study shown in this article, Americans were more likely to talk about sex,
marriage and emotions while in Japan, they would talk about interests, money, and religion. What is
appropriate to talk about in a collectivistic culture individualistic differs
CONCLUSION
So overall, Social Penetration Theory can be taught differently and also differs in cultures. The
first two articles showed how professors approached it. This theory plays out in everyday life but we do
not pay attention to it. So by linking this to our personal lives, the students understood it better when it
related to them. The third article helped us understand that the need to gain familiarity with others is a
worldwide concept. How we approach it differs culturally because some topics are considered more
culturally acceptable than others. Also, some people get close a lot quicker than in other cultures. All in
all, this theory is important because life is impossible without building relationships. Without self-
disclosure, a relationship does not evolve and without that evolution, social penetration does not happen.
References
Chornet-Roses, D. (2010). Using Student’s Prior Knowledge to Teach Social Penetration Theory.
Communication Teacher,24 (3), 150-154.
Nodulman, J. (2009). The Secret Life of Your Classmates: Understanding Social Penetration
Theory. Conference Papers-- National Communication Association.
Pennington, N. (2008). Will you be My Friend: Facebook as a Model for the Evolution of the
Social Penetration Theory. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association.
6. 6 Loic Youth
Chen Y, & Nakazawa,M. (2009). Influences of Culture on Self-Disclosure as Relationally
Situated in Intercultural and Interracial Friendships from a Social Penetration
Perspective. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38 (2),77-98.
SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY
“No you are wrong!” “I don’t really care!” and “Sure we could also try your method” are three
statements that show the three different latitudes of social judgment theory; rejection, non-commitment
and acceptance. As humans,when we hear something we tend to judge it – “Social Judgment Theory is a
way to explain when persuasive messages are most likely to succeed and how people make judgments
about them” (Mallard, 2010, p197). As humans, it is a natural for us to hear something new or different
and judge it. That is why topics such as religion or politics are sensitive because we all judge those
differently. Ego involvement is how we feelabout a topic or an issue. This ego involvement has different
anchors because we feelmore or less about things we judge. An athlete might have a stronger
involvement and a heavy anchor on issues that affect athletes than a history professor would. Likewise,
the professor would care a lot more and have a heavy anchor on an issue affecting his history class while
the athlete will not care as much or will have no ego involvement at all. Social Judgment theory has three
latitudes. Those are the latitudes of acceptance,rejection and non-commitment. It is important to note that
when we judge something, we compare it to our current attitudes and those different attitudes are what
make up our latitudes. A latitude of acceptance is the ideas or attitudes that we can agree with or consider
acceptable. A latitude of rejection is the ideas that we disagree with and we object while a latitude of non-
commitment is the balance between agreement and disagreement; it does not really matter to us [Griffin,
2012]. So based on how an individual behaves,a new idea falls into one of the three latitudes based on
their behaviors. If it seems like it makes sense to them and goes with what they normally do, it falls in
their acceptance latitude. If the individual rejects the idea and does not like something about it, that drops
in their rejection latitude. However,if the person is not too bothered by the idea and is indifferent of its
7. 7 Loic Youth
causes,that means they are non-committed. A high acceptance latitude shows open-mindedness as an
individual is willing to accept other messages and include that in their social reality. On the other hand, a
high rejection latitude equals close-mindedness because the individual is unwilling to open up to other
messages that do not fit with their social reality. It is possible for a message to be decoded and it sounds
like it should land in our latitude of acceptance. If that is the case,the individual does not need any
persuasion because to them it sounds acceptable. If they need persuasion, there would have to be
cognitive dissonance because there would be doubts in their minds. On the other hand, a message could
be decoded negatively and it drops in our latitude of rejection. The effect of that is the boomerang effect
because if something sounds like it could fall within our rejection, it yields a negative response. Pretty
much, if a persuader’s message results in contrast, it leads to a boomerang effect because their message
has an opposing effect. So overall, social judgment theory is the three latitudes through which we judge a
message we encounter. The message and its latitudes could lead to assimilation or a contrast.
APPLICATION OF THEORY
“I reinforce that it is very hard to move individuals who have a high level of ego involvement or
who are in the latitude of rejection” (Mallard, 2010, p.199). This is pretty much saying that if one is
totally against an idea or feels strongly about a situation, it is harder to persuade them to change their
views. Jessica Mallard wrote an article on how she taught this theory in the classroom. In this class
activity, she has students write on 3 separate cards,things that fall within their three latitudes. They were
also given three different stickers as they would have to judge others’ messages and those stickers showed
their latitudes on the message. A generalclass discussion was encouraged, to hear why different students
felt a certain way about a topic. As expected, there was some disagreement and there were some students
who were set on their way of seeing things and were not looking to change that. I mentioned earlier how
sensitive topics are avoided because of the different reactions they could yield. Well, when talking about
such situations, Mallard highlights the importance of engaging in “constructive discussion about
controversial positions, such as being open-minded, suspending judgment, hearing others out, and
8. 8 Loic Youth
framing arguments constructively using ‘‘I’’ language” (Mallard, 2010, p.199). Because these topics are
highly sensitive, we have to be carefulwhen we talk about issues that people have strong ego
involvements on. Being open minded and suspending judgment are huge because one has to be willing to
let themselves be convinced if not the conversation or argument will end in a stalemate. Suspending
judgment is equally as important as being open minded. I say this because different cultures have
different ways of seeing things. As we do not know about every single culture, we just have to be aware
that other people have their own ways of doing things. Plus, what we find normal can be weird to others.
Mallard is also looking at the importance of the “I” statements. Just as I learned in Foundations of Human
Communication, using an “I feel” statement for example then describing your point of view is an
effective way of presenting a highly ego involved topic. This way, the other party understands where you
are coming from. I find this article important because we cannot always ignore having conversations on
delicate subjects. Yes it is better to avoid them in order not to fuel conflict however, a discussion about
religion or politics will come up somewhere, someday. Mallard gives insight to how communication
scholars approach such interactions. Because different latitudes and anchors will clash, there will be
tension for sure. However, following these communicative steps such as keeping an open mind or not
being judgmental can go a long way to completely persuading someone or even just moving their anchor.
Another article I looked at touched on gestures,semantic communication and their effect on
social judgment. In principle, this theory is applicable with verbal communication because we judge a
message we receive. However, nonverbal is also a form of communication and not everyone might
interpret all nonverbal signs the same. So how do gestures and semantics affect social judgment?
“Although it is now clear that people are in fact sensitive to the information contained in concrete iconic
gestures,it remains to be seen whether people are sensitive to the information contained in other gestural
forms, particularly more abstract metaphoric gestures… ” (Beattie,G & Sale, L. 2012, p.79). This touches
back on my earlier point that there are sensitive topics that we do not really talk about. As there are
sensitive topics, so are there sensitive gestures and symbols. In verbal communication, we have contrast
9. 9 Loic Youth
when a message contradicts what we agree with and falls into our latitude of rejection. With gestures,that
is called a mismatch [Beattie & Sale] rather than a contrast. A mismatch is when the gesture and the
speech act do not match. This article outlines a study done to weigh the importance on nonverbal signs
when it comes to social judgment. “In the first study he carried out, he selected three words that were
judged to convey liking – ‘honey’ ‘thanks’ and ‘dear,’ three words judged to be neutral in this regard –
‘maybe’ ‘really’ and ‘oh,’ and three words that conveyed dislike – ‘don't’ ‘brute’ and ‘terrible’” (Beattie,
G & Sale, L. 2012, p.80). Two women read the nine different words with different tones of positivity,
negativity and neutrality; their voices were recorded and their pictures were taken when they did so. The
second study was about the same but there was just one neutral term. The two ladies would read the term
but at different times with a positive, negative and neutral look on their face. The audio recordings and
pictures of the women were presented to judges so they could judge how positive or negative a speaker
came across not only from his message but from nonverbal signs as well. The outcome of the study was
“the facial channel and the vocal channels greatly outweighed the verbal channel” (Beattie, G & Sale, L.
2012, p.81). So what he is saying is that, some words may fall into our latitude of acceptance in general
[e.g. honey or thanks] however, their tone of voice may suggest something else and it lands in a different
latitude. Verbal and nonverbal messages can have an effect on social judgment theory because something
could fall within our acceptance latitude but the nonverbal communicative side of that might send a
different message and very quickly moves from acceptance to non-commitment or rejection. I recently
read this short story for my language senior seminar class in which this young lady knew she was in love
with the man she was about to marry and she could not wait to be with him forever. Her fiancé had given
her his mother’s wedding dress so it had great value to him. However,on the wedding day, before the
ceremony was about to start, he walked in to see his wife to be and she had just accidentally ripped the
dress. Though he did not verbally react,the anger on his face and his nonverbal reaction, she says, were
the reasons why she called off the wedding at the altar. That is because a nonverbal quickly changed how
she judged the situation.
10. 10 Loic Youth
Finally, I will look at social judgment theory and marital conflicts. “Interpersonal conflict occurs
when individuals utilize the same cue information in such a manner that they arrive at different
judgments” (Adelman, Stewart & Hammond, 1975, p.138). This highlights judgment which as humans,
we usually do judge when we encounter or hear something at first. As a result, opposing ideas clash
because people have them placed in different latitudes. Social judgment is a good way to look at marital
conflict because both parties included, have to understand each other’s attitudes in order to understand
their argument or point of view. In addition to viewing each other’s point of view, conflict management in
a relationship, or marriage in this case,involves weighing out variables [e.g. stability, long term goals].
How the individuals in the relationship judge those variables, plays a role on if they resolve the conflict.
“Social judgment theory contends that disagreements may flow from mere exercise of human judgment…
Consequently, any attempt at amelioration of a human conflict situation must try to analyze the human
judgment process and its limitations” (Dhir & Markman. 1984, p.601). So conflict is inevitable however,
it is with social judgment theory that we can start to solve the problem or at least understand the views
that surround the problem. However,the theory has limitations such as if an individual is stone set on an
idea then the conflict does not get resolved because their anchor will not easily be moved. Overall, when a
couple does get in an argument, it is all about overcoming their judgments of matters. Conflict is part of
relationships but the way to solving that is by understanding the other party’s anchor on the subject before
attempting to find a resolution.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the social judgment theory looks at how we judge messages. We may have strong
feelings on some messages,weaker feelings about another message and could care less about the next
message. Persuasion is only possible when we are open to new ideas and are accepting while contrast and
a boomerang effect occur when we reject other ideas other than our own or do not agree with them.
Communication can be both verbal and nonverbal so social judgment theory could also be attributed to
symbols and gestures. If a gesture does not match the sender’s message,that is a mismatch. Nonverbal
11. 11 Loic Youth
communication impacts social judgment just as much as verbal communication does. Finally,
understanding this theory can help look at or even solve marital and relational conflicts. Understanding
the other’s anchor and feelings about something is the first step to solving the problem. From there,the
couple can ask themselves if they deem the variables of the relationship worthy to continue.
References
Mallard, J (2010). Engaging Students in Social Judgment Theory. Communication Teacher.
Beattie, G & Sale, L (2012). Do metaphoric gestures affect how a message is perceived? The effects of
metaphoric gesture speech matches and mismatches on semantic communication and social
judgment. Semiotica.
Adelman L, Stewart T.R & Hammond K.R (1975). A Case History of the Application of Social Judgment
Theory to Policy Formulation. Policy Sciences.
Dhir K.S & Marksman H.J (1984). Application of Social Judgment to Understanding and Treating
Marital Conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family.
AGENDA SETTING
Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw come up with the agenda setting theory which looks at
how media shape their stories and information to influence the audience and their thoughts. Some select
people choose what gets exposed and how it should be exposed to the public. The theory is described as
“mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agendas to the public agenda”
(Griffin, 2012, p.378).We as viewers might see something else as important or as a critical situation but if
12. 12 Loic Youth
the media does not see it in the same light, it is not published with similar salience and emphasis – “But
not all events are made equal” (Wolfe et al, p.181). For example, when we went down to Fort Benning
last year, we looked at a protest against the School of American that in my opinion, should be a nationally
or even internationally known. However, not much is known about the SOA and this could be a
consequence of media agenda setting; they have chosen not to make it salient. “The press may not be
successfulmuch of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successfulin telling its
readers what to think about” (Griffin, 2012, p.379). So in agenda setting, the media imposes on us what to
think about or view as important. Issues that count as breaking news or as front page stories are evident
of agenda setting. These are meant to catch out attention right off the bat and with the bold prints and
position on the media publication; it enforces the importance of whatever issue is being covered. In terms
of agenda setting, there are two levels. The first being the agenda setting as I have just described it, the
media imposing on us what to think as salient. The second level is known as framing. After a topic has
been made salient, it is shaped a certain way so we think of that issue in that light. So pretty much, the
media not only imposes on us what to think but also how to think about it. Griffin defines framing as “the
selection of a restricted number of thematically related attributes for inclusion on the media agenda when
a particular object or issue is discussed” (2012, p.381). Rather than feed us all the facts on the topic, some
are selected and others left out so we mirror how the media views this topic. One thing that greatly aids
the agenda setting is the audience’s index of curiosity. If the audience is highly interested in something
but is not well informed on it, they get curious and seek to feed their curiosity. As a result, they get
exposed to the media’s view of the topic and they absorb whatever the media shows them. Thus they
think of it just as the media wants them to. On the other hand, there are groups of people who force
themselves into the media’s agenda and take center stage in media publications. These groups are
commonly known as interest aggregation in the world of communication and they could be groups such
as terrorists, protesters etc. As the cultivation theory tell us, we are affected by media. As a result, the
media’s agenda affects us. What is made salient and how it is framed affects how we behave and feel
about the problem. For example, the media has framed LeBron James up as an incredible athlete. As a
13. 13 Loic Youth
result, those who do not know much about basketball like myself, think of LeBron as a really good NBA
player. Not because we know that for sure but because the media has framed it up to be as such. Overall,
the media does control what they want us to think and also how to think about it. As a result, our
behaviors are affected to match what the media wants us to feeland behave.
APPLICATION OF THEORY
Agenda setting can be seen through the different medium because media is ever present around
us. Firstly, I will look at agenda setting in political communication. “Deciding what to decide—agenda
formation or agenda setting—is of ‘centralimportance to any political system’” (Wolfe et al. p.175).
Politics is an area where there will always be an agenda setting by the media and making decisions is a
part of politics. Wolfe and her co-authors thus highlight that “…elites are most often viewed as sources of
information on public affairs whose messages are mediated by the media” (Wolfe et al, p.177).
Concerning political issues, it is those at the top of the political tree that influence what messages are put
out about campaigns and the likes. Those who are following these political figures then have to go with
whatever information that bigger heads decide to get published. The article further states “Media attention
sometimes precedes and sometimes follows changes in attention by government agencies” (Wolfe et al,
p.179). In some cases,the media might have their own agenda on the politician but more often than not,
they bend their info based on what those politicians want or what members of the government deem
acceptable. When talking about agenda setting and politics, it is not only decisions on politicians but also
in the establishment of policies. When it comes to policy establishment, it is still those higher ups that
make the final decisions. However,it is the media that publishes the policy action so they impact how
they policy is portrayed and how effective it will be. Wolfe did a study on how media mediates the speed
at which a policy is made public. She agreed that “media coverage influenced the speed of the policy
14. 14 Loic Youth
process” (Wolfe et al, p.179) and that is because the media emphasized the policy and molded how we
thought of it. As a result, it got quickly implemented. Without having to know much about politics, it is
usual for a president’s speech to be all over the news the day of or the day after. Therefore,when a new
policy is declared by someone of that stature,it is all over the media with a specific angle from which the
audience is made to look at. Overall, there is a lot of agenda setting in politics because the politicians use
the media to dictate the public agenda.
Lei Guo (2012) looks at The Application of Social Network analysisin agenda setting research.
“The application of social network analysis to agenda setting research is particularly helpful and timely
for studying media effects in the electronic media environment, particularly the Internet sphere with its
continuing proliferation of information and communication channels” (p.617). Along with the internet
came social media. There are numerous social medium so information travels at a rapid rate. Thus, with
this prominent use of social media in this generation, there is a degree of agenda setting. Guo highlights
that the Iraq War,Saddam Hussein and the September 11 tragedy were broadcasted together when they
were happening (2012). Because these were alltragedies happening around the same time, the media
established some sort of connection between them. So mention of one triggered memory of the other two
tragedies as well. “By further investigating the meanings underlying the connections, researchers could
obtain a better understanding of the agenda presented by the news media” (Guo, 2012, p.610). So not only
did agenda setting become more efficient with social networking, the timing of certain information
broadcast is to establish links so when we think of one, we think of the other.
“Network analysis provides a variety of measurements to describe networks of different kinds”
(Guo, 2012, p.618). Guo measures centrality and applies it to agenda setting. By this he looks at the
different nodes or connections that make up the agenda which is the centralfocus. The journal states that
“Applying the concept of centrality to agenda setting research,researchers are not only able to
trace which objects or attributes are on the very top of the agenda, but also are able to examine
15. 15 Loic Youth
which elements are at the center of the picture, or which elements are most extensively involved
in relationships with other elements” (2012, p.618).
The message is central but when it is published on these medium, it relays and frames the messages on to
the audience. I mentioned how those three issues were being published at the same time to frame how the
audience thought of them. Guo states that “although the emphasis here is on the news media, as is most
agenda-setting research,this approach also can be used to examine the agendas of web sites and the host
of new electronic media used by individuals” (2012, p.618). This to a certain extent shows framing
because when the audience sees or hears about one of the problems, they are framed to automatically
think of the other two problems. The relationship between agenda setters and the audience is the medium
so as they have shaped their agenda for us, it also represented same on the internet and other social media
which we use. That relationship with other elements that Guo mentions is highlighted here because the
medium is the relationship between the agenda setters and the audience. So since we are so hooked to the
internet and always on social media, they are framed and setup a certain way to feed us information. Guo
applies another research method called the Quadratic Assignment Procedure [QAP] to “compare media
agenda networks and public agenda networks so as to investigate in depth the extent to which the news
media connect the world outside and pictures in our heads” (2012, p.618-619). Once again we are back to
his idea of a relationship with another element. The world and its issues are attached to our cognitive and
how we picture things. His use of the phrase “pictures in our heads” is extremely important because it
shows that it is not just what we think that social media affects. It is how we view things. With the media
showing us videos from the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein and September 11 at the same time, they manage
alter how the audience views the situation.
“The QAP correlation tests indicated that the media and the public attribute agenda networks
were significantly correlated… They then proposed the Network Agenda Setting Model, which
asserts that the salience of the network relationships among objects and attributes can be
transferred from the news media to the public” (2012, p.619).
16. 16 Loic Youth
So it is undeniable that agenda setting uses social media to make a message salient. Most people
in this day and age have access to some form of social media. As a result, information travels fast and
how the media wants us to see something is communicated through these medium. Guo talks about a
relationship between elements while talking about measuring centrality. In this case,the message is what
is central. The audience is on the other side of the spectrum since they will receive the message. However,
the medium is the link between both of them so the audience has to take the message as it is framed.
Rather than look at another scholarly application of agenda setting, I decided to talk about agenda
setting in football (soccer) journalism. There will always be opinions and perceptions of players and
teams in the media. But it is how these players and teams are framed and talked about that shows agenda
setting. I know for certain there is agenda setting in football journalism. As we currently speak, there is a
hashtag trending on twitter saying #WengerOut. Wenger is the manager of Arsenalfootball club in
England and for a number of years,the club has been struggling and many fans and the media want him
to resign. There is agenda setting here because the messages in this trending topic portray all of his
struggles over the last 10 years. However,it fails to depict his numerous successes at the club in his
earlier years as manager. Now there are fans who are more informed on the club and can understand why
the club is currently struggling but for those basing their judgments strictly on that hashtag, they see that
negative image of him and want him to leave the club. So it shows how media can pick an agenda. I
strongly believe that the media has more of an agenda if the person or team is very famous. Recently,
James Tozer wrote an article for the Daily Mail newspaper in England. The article was titled “He had an
affair with his brother's fiancée then gagged the press... now Ryan Giggs is the boss of Manchester United
[for the moment]” (2014). Ryan Giggs is a very successfulplayer that had a 24 year career and played for
England’s most successfulclub so he is the kind of famous target that the media preys on. The agenda
setting here would not make sense without understanding the context and time period surrounding this
article. Giggs’ cheating scandals were revealed back in 2011. However,he had just gotten hired as the
temporary manager of England’s most prestigious and most successfulclub earlier this year. So this
17. 17 Loic Youth
article by James Tozer decided not to really focus on the current event of Giggs getting his new job but it
zoomed in again on Giggs as a cheat. So there is an agenda setting because the journalist could have made
his appointment more salient from a positive light. However,he brought back old facts that could easily
tarnish Giggs’ image. Also, it is the fact that three years had gone by since his scandals. Still, the
newspaper allowed for an article to be published to make salient the idea that Ryan Giggs is probably not
the right fit for such an elevated position. Once again, if the reader did not have a sound knowledge on the
topic and only wanted to feed their interest, they would probably criticize the football club for hiring such
a person as a manager. However,I as a football fan along with others would know that Ryan Giggs is a
Manchester United legend and knows a lot more about the club than most people do. They also would not
know that he is the club’s most decorated player so he cares for the club at a deeper level. So him coming
back as a manager, could be good for the club as he knows its values well. In general, we see agenda
setting in this news article because the author has shaped and framed it a certain way to influence how we
think about Ryan Giggs. Those who read it are not really given the chance to consider another view of
Giggs because the content of the article paints him as a bad person.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the media has a lot of power thus they use agenda setting to impose their own agenda to
the public. Also, there are numerous mediums through which information is transferred and with us being
so hooked on our technical devices with all these mediums, we are always exposed to media agenda and
messages. So we can either get sucked in by their altered messages or selectively decode them, which is
harder to do. Journalism, sports journalism included, also has a degree of agenda setting to it because they
choose the journalist frame their articles a certain way and that is what the audience is exposed to.
References
18. 18 Loic Youth
Guo, L (2012). The Application of Social Network Analysis in Agenda Setting Research:A
Methodological Exploration. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 56(4), pp. 616–631.
Tozer, J. (2014, April 22). He had an affair with his brother's fiancee then gagged the press... now Ryan
Giggs is the boss of Manchester United (for the moment). Retrieved from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610697/He-gagged-press-affair-brothers-fianc-e-Ryan-
Giggs-boss-Manchester-United.html
Wolfe, M et al (2013). A Failure to Communicate: Agenda Setting in Media and Policy Studies. Political
Communication,30:175–192.
COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY
Communication Accommodation theory or CAT “has served as a cross-disciplinary framework
for understanding the adjustments individuals make to create,maintain, or decrease socialdistance in
interactions” (Communication Accommodation theory, 2012). Our interactions on a daily basis vary from
person to person. In class we were given the example that what you would discuss with you mother and
friend the night after a party would be two different things. This scholarly journal further states that our
different interactions go “way beyond the mere exchange of referential information and emotions”
(Communication Accommodation theory, 2012) so in general, we use more indicators to judge how to
approach an interaction. This theory, founded by Howard Giles comes from his claim that people from
different ethnic and cultural backgrounds accommodate each other to gain approval (Griffin, 2012); the
more attraction and similarities are perceived, the more one seeks appreciation through CAT. The
accommodation is “the constant movement towards or away from others by changing your
communicative behavior” (Griffin, 2012, p.395). We choose how to accommodate our communicative
style, so with the constant changing of communicative behavior we can either adapt to another’s
communication style because we like the person or we sort of drift away. Accommodation and behavioral
19. 19 Loic Youth
changes can be broken down into convergence and divergence. With convergence, one changes their
communicative style to match that of the other while divergence is the opposite, the communicative style
used, emphasizes the difference between both parties involved. Whether we converge or diverge is solely
based on the person however, researchers of this theory have stated that intergenerational interactions
normally diverge. That is because the younger generation looks at the elderly as not being a part of their
times while the elderly blame their age for not being in touch with our generation. This theory has a bit of
uncertainty reduction theory to it as well as attribution theory. I say this because in uncertainty reduction,
we interact to gain more knowledge on another person. If we accommodate our speech out of liking for
someone, we want to know them more and to keep this interaction going to gain more knowledge on the
other party. It also touches on attribution theory because when we have observed the other party and have
made inferences on their behavior, we either converge or diverge. One anticipates what the other will do
based on their observed behavior and will adapt to match that expected behavior. So in general, there are
two motivations when converging or diverging. Either there is a desire to be approved so we converge to
get something positive out of the interaction or we diverge because we value our distinctiveness. So in all,
we use communication accommodation theory to decide how we approach an interaction. We either
accommodate with convergence because we perceive rewards from the interaction or we diverge because
we want to preserve a self-identity or some sort of distinctiveness.
APPLICATION OF THEORY
Mobley Dougherty writes a journal on how language shift impacts convergence and divergence in
intercultural communication. The author talks about “The use of language to create meaning is present in
these theories but an understanding and explication of how meaning shifts even when similar language is
used is absent from these theories” (Dougherty, 2008, p.1). The meanings of words are ever changing and
people use them based on culture and to fit their communication needs. So the author of this journal looks
at how changes in words’ meanings affect converging and diverging; it is further stated “language
Convergence/Meaning Divergence attempts to look at the inside of intercultural interactions to the
20. 20 Loic Youth
potential causes of the dissonance and uncertainty that appear as interactions progress even when
linguistically the interaction appears harmonious” (Dougherty, 2008, p.2). Because words evolve and
meanings are tweaked,what was once “harmonious”, as Dougherty says,could cause uncertainty at a
different time; this can impact intercultural communication. This article looks at the following
communication theories: uncertainty reduction theory (URT) and the cultural convergence theory.
Cultural convergence theory is “the need for individuals to reach an understanding of themselves and the
world around them” (Dougherty, 2008, p.4) and that understanding is built through meanings that are
negotiated culturally; how/why we converge and diverge to accommodate can be culturally constructed. I
talked about uncertainty theory earlier and it affects convergence and divergence because we base our
accommodation style on the perceived rewards/punishments of the relationship. So if language is ever
changing in different cultures, our understanding of the world around us changes and what is normally a
positive accommodating gesture,might have changed in a different society. Thus causing an ambiguity in
the interaction. Dougherty says that with unrestricted communication, the meanings get easily shared but
if, for whatever reason,one is not exposed to intercultural communication, they miss out on meaning
shifts. If culture is a “learned systems of meaning that are shared through everyday interactions and
facilitate members’ ability to survive and adapt to their external environment” (Dougherty, 2008, p.6),
people then all have to be exposed to different cultural meanings or run the risk of missing out on cultural
changes in meanings. This could be an issue because an accommodation may have been ideal in a
different culture or time period but when used in a different time period, it would lead to dissonance and
maybe the opposite reaction.
Jessica Gasoriek did a study on how people responded to what they perceived as non-
accommodation. She defines non-accommodation as “communication that at least one participant in an
interaction perceives as insufficiently adjusted for his or her needs,has negative psychological
consequences for recipients” (Gasoriek, 2013, p.604). She also talks about how perceived motives affect
reactions – “Recent research has shown that psychological responses to under accommodation, are
21. 21 Loic Youth
influenced by attributions of negative motive” (Gasoriek, 2013, p.605). Accommodation is usually
perceived positively and generates different responses than a perceived non-accommodation would.
“Behavior is inextricably linked to our psychological responses to interaction: it is speakers’ actions that
we (psychologically) evaluate, and how we interpret an interaction depends on the dynamic development
of speakers’ behavior over time” (Gasoriek, 2013, p.605). In the study, people’s reactions were looked at
when having been disclosed some negative personal information. They came up with the following
reactions; the person feeling non-accommodated:
“Acknowledges the speaker but do not elaborate or explicitly invite further comment, maintains
focus on the topic of discussion (e.g. by asking questions), provides an evaluating response,
reformulating the content of the disclosure, provides one’s own disclosure in return and shifts or
changes the topic” (Gasoriek, 2013, p.608).
Those feeling non-accommodated in these situations, were reluctantly accommodating because they were
not necessarily comfortable talking about such things. There are more reactions than what is mentioned
above. Furthermore, people can have direct or indirect reactions to a non-accommodation. A participant
told the person disclosing the negative information that they should not be saying the things they were
saying; this was a direct, upfront approach. The indirect style was a participant hearing what the person
disclosed then just turned around and acted like they had not heard what was said. From the entire study,
the variables that affect a reaction to non-accommodation are initial orientation, situational constraints,
face concerns,and nature of the under accommodation (Gasoriek, 2013). Initial orientation is based on
how comfortable or how much one knows the speaker. Situational constraints are issues in the situation
that prevent person from acting normally and freely e.g. established social norms. Face concerns is all
about how one wants to present them self in front of others so we may not want to be embarrassed.
Finally, nature of the under accommodation is how we interpret the lack of accommodation and how bad
it is. So in general, “as perceptions of negative motive increase, recipients are less likely let under
22. 22 Loic Youth
accommodation ‘‘pass’’ and more likely to express negative affect and or withdraw from the interaction”
(Gasoriek, 2013, p.621).
Jesús Barbero wrote on digital convergence and cultural communication. With the omnipresence
on technology, it has impacted and changed how we communicate culturally and inter culturally. He tells
us that “Digital technology, in constituting itself as a third environment which interacts with the natural
and urban/social environment, is thus configuring our modes of inhabiting the world and the very forms
of social ties” (2009, p.148). With this exposure to so much information, a rapid demand for
information/communication has become a part of our culture. This whole world digitization is a form of
globalization to a certain extent because cultures are exposed to one another freely and contacts/conflicts
can easily be intensified. “Technology today refers not only and not so much to the novelty of the
apparatus but also to new modes of perception and of language, to new sensibilities and writings”
(Barbero,2009, p.149). Nowadays we use “brb”, “ttyl” “#” as new methods of communicating because
we are limited to 140 characters to communicate. These shorts forms never existed before because
medium like twitter did not exist back in the day. It was pen and paper so there was enough space to spell
things out. Digitalization has two conditions, it “opens the possibility of a common language of data,
texts, sounds, images and videos.” The second condition is “opens the possibility of the configuration of a
new public space constructed by social movements, cultural communities, and communal media”
(Barbero,2009, p.151). So with technology we are creating more of a universal language and we can
incorporate different cultures at once. So our new methods of accommodation and talking to others then
changes because of our use of technological communication. Barbero mentions that we grow up learning
communication from what is around us, therefore with the current generation deeply reliant on technology
for communication, our methods of accommodation, whether converging or diverging, will now be
transformed through technology. In all, technology has impacted how we communicate. However,with
social media, all cultures link easily so the creation of universal or a trending meaning spreads quickly.
However,our accommodation is mainly based on technology and not so much face-to-face.
23. 23 Loic Youth
CONCLUSION
In all, Communication accommodation theory is all about how we accommodate to others in
interactions. We may accommodate because we like the other or the total opposite. In accommodation,
one either is converging or diverting. Converging generally happens when one perceives a reward so they
alter the accommodation style to show liking. Someone who diverts on the other hand is negative as they
want to preserve their distinctiveness. In diverging, one could either be self-handicapping, maintaining or
over accommodating.
References
Barbero, J.M (2009). Digital convergence in cultural communication. Popular communication, 7(3),147
– 157.
Communication accommodation theory (2012). A contextual and meta-analytical review. Conference
Paper – International Communication Association, 1 – 64.
Doughert, D, Mobley, S & Smith, S (2008). Language convergence and meaning divergence. A theory of
intercultural communication. Conference Papers – National Communication Association,1 – 24.
Gasoriek, J (2013). “I was impolite to her because that’s how she was to me.” Perceptions of motive and
young adults’ communicative responses to under accommodation. Western journal of
communication. 77(5),604 – 624.
