Alexa Silva

Dr. Kristen Berkos

8/29/20
COM491-A
Discussion Prompt #1

The meaning we derive from messages comes from our interpretation of words or actions
and as a result, communication is an intrapersonal process. This process as well as the cognitive
aspects of communication can be explained by five theories including the Attribution Theory, the
Correspondent Inference Theory, the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, the Expectancy Violations
Theory, and the Cognitive Dissonance Theory. These theories are beneficial for me to
understand because they can help me explore the uncertainty that I continue to struggle with as
the pandemic continues. Additionally, all of these theories are important to explaining the
internal processes that are followed by personal meaning that we create from messages.
According to the Attribution Theory, the judgements and conclusions we make that
explain causes for behavior are called attributions. Therefore, the Attribution Theory explains the
cognitive process that we individually use to make sense of behavior. As the book states, we
really do act like naive psychologists when trying to make sense of the causes of certain
behavior, which include specific factors. These factors can be dispositional, which refer to
personal factors such as personality or biological traits, or they can be situational, which refer to
external factors that are determined by the situation at hand. For example, there was one instance
when I was about to give a presentation in front of a class at Bryant and while I was logging into
my email to access my powerpoint, the computer called my phone to verify my login on a new
device. I ran to my backpack and tried to quickly answer my phone while my professor’s
annoyance with me was slightly obvious. Needless to say, this caused me to have a not-so-great
presentation. In this situation, Bryant’s unexpected verification process can be a situational
attribution for my poor presentation. If I could have potentially prepared for this hiccup then my
poor presentation would be viewed as an internal attribution.
The next theory, the Correspondent Inference Theory, explains how When we assign
causes of behavior to dispositional factors, we are making inferences about the intentions of the
person who committed that behavior. The Correspondent Inference Theory explains how before
making these inferences, we must determine whether or not this person acted in a specific way
intentionally while knowing the effects of that behavior. Inferences correspond when an action is
mirrored by a dispositional inference and the perceiver attaches a similar label to both the
disposition and the action. While making the determination about a person’s intentions, many
factors can be considered that include choice, assumed desirability, social role, prior
expectations, hedonic relevance, and personalism. While these factors should not be relied on
since biased inferences are possible, they can be useful in aiding the assessment of a person’s
behavioral intentions. In contrast to this strong focus on intentionality, Kelley’s Covariation
Model tries to explain attributions as a whole. Kelley claims we judge the causality of a person’s
behavior based on consensus, consistency, distinctiveness, and controllability. You can infer
whether a person’s actions were internally or externally controlled when the first 3 factors are
combined. As a result of combining these, many combinations are present that give you greater
accuracy when predicting the controllability of a person’s behavior.
The third theory, Uncertainty Reduction Theory, explores how we use communication
when interacting with others to reduce our doubt. This theory is guided by three assumptions
with the first one being that the main goal of communication is to reduce uncertainties we have
about the world and the people in it. The next assumption is that experiencing uncertainty is not
pleasant, although we do experience it on a regular basis. Lastly, it can be assumed that
communication is the driver of minimizing uncertainty. It is important to recognize that we
cannot reduce uncertainty in every situation or with every new person that we meet and there are
specific antecedent conditions that impact whether we have the motivation to do so. In addition
to these conditions that make us want to reduce uncertainty, there are also two types of
uncertainty we experience, which are behavioral and cognitive. Behavioral uncertainty is
associated with your insecurities about what actions are appropriate in a specific situation while
cognitive uncertainty is associated with when you are unsure of what to think about another
person’s beliefs or attitudes. As an example, I remember experiencing behavioral uncertainty
when auditioning for the Bryant Dance Team. I was wondering, can I have a sip of water or can I
only drink when the coach says so? Do I wear sneakers or jazz shoes? Am I allowed to go to the
bathroom? In this situation, I was especially insecure about how I should have acted because I
was not given much direction before the audition.
The fourth theory, Expectancy Violations Theory, explains the meaning we assign to the
violation of our personal space, which includes psychological and emotional space. An
assumption that is important to understanding this theory is that our needs compete for personal
space and affiliation. When we experience a violation, this theory can make predictions about
our reaction to it. This reaction can range from reciprocating the behavior to compensating by
doing the opposite of the behavior. In the Expectancy Violations Theory, expectancy refers to
what you anticipate will occur in a certain situation. Expectancy is associated with three factors
which are context of the behavior, the relationship you have with the person in this situation, and
the communicator characteristics. When you feel that your expectations have been breached, you
then judge this behavior which is known as the violation valence. Similarly, we also evaluate
how rewarding or interpersonally attracted the person who committed the violation is, which is
called the communicator reward valence.
The last theory is the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, which gives us an understanding of
how coercion can be a cognitive event when an individual is prompted to form a balance
between their personal beliefs and behavior. We use schemata to understand new information
from an unfamiliar stimulus as we link it to a previous experience we understood. There are three
relationships that are possible between beliefs and behaviors including irrelevance, consonance,
and dissonance. Irrelevance refers to when beliefs and behaviors are not related to each other
while consonance refers to when two pieces of information are in balance. Dissonance occurs
when two pieces of information contradict each other, however there is a magnitude of
dissonance that means not all dissonance is equal. First, this can be measured by the amount of
dissonance you experience that is affected by how important you find the issue. Second, it can
also be measured by dissonance ratio which is a proportion of incongruent beliefs in relation to
consonant beliefs. Lastly, your ability to rationalize dissonance affects how much discomfort you
experience when facing opposing beliefs and behaviors. Since we strive to maintain consonance
when possible, an effect of this rationalization may be changing your behavior or altering your
beliefs, even if it is only for the appearance of consonance.
All of these theories that explain the interpersonal process of communication as well as
the cognitive aspects of communication can be applied to how we interpret behavior and beliefs
in the workplace and on campus. Additionally, both of these components can also be applied to
how we manage uncertainty on a daily basis. In many of my business classes here at Bryant, we
explore many cases involving ineffective team leaders and poor decisions. I know in my future
workplace, I will most likely face similar problems. Therefore, gaining a greater understanding
of these theories will be beneficial when looking at cases or problems with teams in my future
workplace because I can interpret behaviors better to solve the problem more effectively. It is
also beneficial for me to better understand myself and how I handle uncertainty because
especially during these times of uncertainty involving Covid-19 that we continue to experience, I
can learn how to better manage my distress.

When making the determination about a person’s intentions, factors that can be
considered include choice, assumed desirability, social role, prior expectations, hedonic
relevance, and personalism. The text states that while these factors may be useful in the
assessment of someone’s behavioral intentions, they should not be relied on because of the risk
of biased inferences. Do you feel that even considering these factors already makes your
inferences biased or do you find it almost necessary to truly assess the intentions of someone’s
behavior?

According to the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, there are three strategies that
characterize the majority of uncertainty-reduction communication which are passive, active, and
interactive. Can we categorize ourselves as using one main strategy or would you say it differs
for all of us depending on the given situation?