Mathew Amaral

Discussion Prompt 1
Chapter 3
Cognition and Intrapersonal Communication

Summary:
In one sentence, this chapters revolves around the presence of one’s own beliefs and attitudes in
deriving meaning to stimuli.

It goes to discover that ones own self manufactures the meaning of something, but not without any
influences or cognitive process. The mind stores behaviors and thoughts to a certain stimuli to create a
streamlined process of deriving meaning. There are many theories but the chapter took a handful under
a microscope.

The attribution theory applies that people use judgements on themselves to why they acted in a certain
way. Or simply, their casual explanations for behavior. Factors that influence the behavior are from
within, considered dispositional and also from the outside, or situational. A theory related to attribution
theory is the correspondent inference theory, which highlights reasons to why the actor was
communicating in a given way and also how desirable the communication is to the receiver.

The chapter also went into detail about Kelley’s Covariation Model:

We judge others behavior by four different factors: consensus, consistency, distinctiveness, and
controllability. For consensus, one looks as the behavior to if it is a normal action or message from the
actor. Next, the receiver processes if the sender usually makes this behavior or has a history of doing
this. After consistency, one can be effected by the distinctiveness of the action. Is it being altered due to
the situation. Finally, controllability of the actor looks to see if it was an unavoidable behavior or a
controlled decision by the actor.

Essentially, Kelley’s Covariation Model allows understanding and judgement to be derived from a matrix
of situational factors.

The next theory discussed is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT), this goes to explain when, why
and how an individual communicates to reduce doubt of outcomes. The reason to reduce uncertainty
can be derived from three major things. The anticipation of future interaction, the incentive behind
reducing uncertainty with that individual and finally when dealing with a stimuli that is unusual or
bizarre. The theory suggests there are two types of uncertainty; behavioral and cognitive. One to deal
with insecurity of one’s own actions and one to handle insecurity of one’s own thoughts.

To reduce uncertainty, there are different strategies or ways to accomplish a reduction. One is
interactive, where questioning the source of uncertainty directly is the action. Another strategy is to
observe the environment and surroundings around the stimuli generating uncertainty.
The chapter continues on to discuss the Expectancy Violations Theory which theorizes the meaning
people attribute to violations of personal space. Considering proxemics and what happens when one
violates that physical distance or closeness. It looks to predict whether one will reciprocate that
closeness and also if they’ll counteract that closeness. The theory goes into ones own evaluation about
the violation and to how it was received. It also goes to prove that the rewardingness of the
communicator will be a factor. How the receiver views the communicator can potentially have the
largest impact in terms of physical closeness.

Finally, the Cognitive Dissonance Theory is discussed. This theory is set to predict persuasion is often
intrapersonal and derived from owns incongruence of beliefs, attitudes and the tension from that. It
evaluates the solutions to that tension are what is persuaded. People often behave in ways that are
congruent with beliefs to refrain from having dissonance. The theory creates types of behaviors and
beliefs and classifies them as irrelevant, consonance (congruent beliefs) and dissonant (incongruent
beliefs).

Application:

I personally enjoyed reading this chapter as it often made me think away from the book and think of
myself. At the end of the day, we react the way we choose to in just about any situation. Life is full of
our choices, but what constitutes those choices? What is behind those communicative actions, what is it
we want to communicate in each and every reaction or behavior we do? That process is often innate;
our judgements and behaviors are such fine tuned and wired to be automatic that when reading these
theories it almost looks to inspect the motors and fuel that drive decisions derived from our own views
and intentions.

I really saw a mechanical process of decision making in Kelley’s Covariation Model. Not often do you
dissect the situational factor under such a microscope. Considering the if the message from receiver is
normal or not out of the ordinary is a completely overlooked process in cognition unless the message is
one that is not usual. I thought while reading, this process of evaluating consensus, consistency,
distinctiveness and controllability is often automatic or innate unless there are multiple solutions or
ways to achieve the goal presented in this communication scenario. Often, these four values have to do
with our certainty of what behavior is to be predicted during the communication process. If it is an
action that creates uncertainty, one of the four judgements in Kelley’s Covariation Model would be
highlighted or flagged as out of the ordinary.

Continuing along the chapter, I highlighted to myself the importance of perspective in communication.
Taking a perspective that evaluates goals of other communicators quickly when they become evident.
Being a communicator that can easily understand the reasoning behind another’s communication, can
allow one an advantage in persuasion or influence. As one often has a cognitive guide to how they
achieve the goal, if I know what their goal is, I may be able to predict such path they wish to take to get
to their goal. In this situation, I put myself in the seat of either inserting myself to intercept their path to
their goal for a reward of my own, or remove myself out of said communicative path as it of no reward
to myself. This makes me think of relationships as large as business to business transactions, to
relationships as little as negotiating plans in a social group. Seeing and quickly understandings another’s
communication goals is key to being an expert communicator or persuader; especially if they do not yet
see you have understood their communication goal.
Discussion questions:

Why do you think a little uncertainty is necessary for maintaining a healthy relationship?

- Can complete certainty even exists?

How should cognitive dissonance theory be understood when looking at persuasion?

- What tactics or ideas help create congruence between one intrapersonal attitudes and what
you are persuading?