CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS OF

COMMUNICATION THEORIES
1.1 What is communication?
Communication is a learned skill. However, while most people are born with the physical ability
to talk, not all can communicate well unless they make special efforts to develop and refine or
improve this skill further. Very often, we take the ease with which we communicate with each
other for granted, so much so that we sometimes forget how complex the communication process
actually is.
Communication can broadly be defined as exchange of ideas, messages and information between
two or more persons, through a medium, in a manner that the sender and the receiver understand
the message in the common sense that is, they develop common understanding of the message.
The word communication is derived from the Latin word ‘communicare’, which means to share,
impart, participate, exchange, and transmit or to make common. It emphasizes on sharing
common information, ideas and messages. It is not merely issuing orders and instructions.

“Communication is the transfer of information from a sender to a receiver, with the information
being understood by the receiver”. — Koontz and Weihrich “Communication is the art of
developing and attaining understanding between people. It is the process of exchanging
information and feelings between two or more people and essential to effective management.” —
Terry and Franklin “Communication is the sum of all things one person does when he wants to
create understanding in the mind of another. It is a bridge of meaning. It involves a systematic
and continuous process of telling, listening and understanding.” — Allen Louis “Communication
is the process by which people attempt to share meaning via the transmission of symbolic
messages.” — Stoner and Wankel.

The word Communication describes the process of conveying messages (facts, ideas, attitudes
and opinions) from one person to another, so that they are understood. (M.W. Cumming)
Communication is the process whereby speech, signs or actions transmit information from one
person to another. This definition is concise and definitive but doesn‘t include all the aspects of
communication. There are other definitions, which state that communication involves
transmitting information from one party to another. This broader definition doesn‘t require that
the receiving party obtain a full understanding of the message.

1
 Of course, communication is better when both parties understand... but it can still exist even
without that component Communication is a process of transmitting and receiving verbal and
nonverbal messages that produce a response. The communication is considered effective when it
achieves the desired reaction or response from the receiver, simply stated, communication is a
two way process of exchanging ideas or information between human beings. Communication can
be defined as the process through which two or more persons come to exchange ideas and
understanding among them. Communication is the understanding, not of the visible but of the
invisible and hidden. These hidden and symbolic elements embedded in the culture give meaning
to the visible communication process. Equally, if not of more importance is the fact that
communication is a personal process that involves the exchange of behaviors. Invansevich and
Matteson noted that Communication among people does not depend on technology but rather on
forces in people and their surroundings. It is a process that occurs within people.
The process of communication involves a series of stages:
1) An idea arises in the mind of the sender, which he wants to share.
2) The sender encodes the idea in the form of a ‗message‘.
3) The sender chooses some medium / channel to put across the message.
4) The receiver receives the message.
5) The receiver decodes – absorbs, understands, interprets the message.
6) The receiver sends feedback or his response.
The components or elements of the communication process are as follows:
1) The sender or the communicator
2) The message
3) Encoding: to change something into a system for sending messages secretly, or to represent
complicated information in a simple or short way.
4) The medium / channel Examples of a Communication Medium

 Conversation. An interactive conversation in person or using a voice tool such as a telephone. ...
 Public Speaking. Verbal communication that is more or less one-way such as a presentation at a
conference.
 Documents. ...Messages. ...Art. ...Music. ... Video. ... Images…
5) The receiver
6) Decoding
7) Feedback 8) Barrier
2
 1.2 WHAT IS THEORY?
A theory is an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. An idea that is
suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.
Theories provide us with a lens by which to view the world. Think of theories as a pair of
glasses. Corrective lenses allow wearers to observe more clearly, but they also impact vision in
unexpected ways. For example, they can limit the span of what you see, especially when you try
to look peripherally outside the range of the frames. Similarly, lenses can also distort the
things you see, making objects appear larger or smaller than they really are. You can also
try on lots of pairs of glasses until you finally pick one pair that works the best for your lifestyle.
Theories operate in a similar fashion. A theory can illuminate an aspect of your communication
so that you understand the process much more clearly; theory also can hide things from your
understanding or distort the relative importance of things. We consider a communication theory
to be any systematic summary about the nature of the communication process. Certainly, theories
can do more than summarize. Other functions of theories are to focus attention on particular
concepts, clarify our observations, predict communication behavior, and generate personal and
social change (Littlejohn, 1999). We do not believe, however, that all of these functions are
necessary for a systematic summary of communication processes to be considered a theory.
HooverHoover, K. R. (1984). The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking (3rd ed.). New York:
St. Martin's Press, p. 38. Straightforwardly defined a theory as “a set of inter-related
propositions that suggest why events occur in the manner that they do.” According to the
National Academy of Sciences, Boss, J. (2010). Think; Critical Thinking for Everyday Life. New
York: McGraw-Hill, p. 379. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some
aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Similar definitions have been put forth by other authorities. All the definitions, however,
describe theories as the product of intellectual activity and as a source of insight into interpreting
phenomena.
Some theories are solid and universally accepted. Examples include the heliocentric theory and
germ theory. It’s assumed that these theories require no further testing or evidence to continue to
be accepted.
Other more provisional theories, such as string theory in physics or self-efficacy theory in
psychology, require continual exploration and testing in order to be supported and retained.

3
Theories are never to be regarded as factual, but rather as models which conform to facts as
closely as possible.
1.2.1 Functions of Theory
So—what can theories do for us? Their main function is to help us make sense of phenomena,
including human behavior. They help us answer “why” and “how” questions about the world.
More specifically, they can fulfill three major functions.
The first function is explanation. Theories can help us understand why entities—physical
objects, processes, or people—behave the way they do, individually or in interactions with each
other.
The second function is “post diction.” Theories can help us interpret specific past incidents and
events and account for why they would be expected to happen as they did. Thus, they give us
assurance that order exists in at least part of the world.
The final function is prediction, whereby theories help us gain confidence in describing what is
likely to take place in the future. Many physical phenomena occur with a degree of stability and
consistency over time. Although human beings often surprise each other, psychologists have
contended that someone’s past behavior is the best predictor of that person’s future behavior.
Thus, if our theories have properly and accurately post dicted the way someone has acted, they
should lead us to a clear picture of what future behavior that person will exhibit.
Before they had reasonable theories regarding physical science, our ancestors found events like
eclipses and earthquakes to be inexplicable. They responded to such phenomena with dread or
superstitious speculation. The same was true with respect to complex bodily functions and the
spread of disease. Having theories about our natural world and our place in it gives us as human
beings a comfortable, reliable foundation upon which to strengthen and enlarge our knowledge.
Theories, in short, free us to spread our mental wings and fly into new territory.
Three other characteristics are associated with good theories. First, they exhibit parsimony; that
is, they are as simple as possible. Second, they should be consistent with previous theories.
Third, they also need to be deniable.
Deniability means that those who hold a theory should be able to describe evidence which
would cause them to abandon it. If this weren’t the case, choosing among competing theories
would be a matter only of who spoke loudest or fought hardest on behalf of their opinions.

4
1.2.2 Three steps of forming theories are:
1) Asking important questions,
2) Looking for answers through observation, and
3) Forming answers or theories as a result of observation.
Are all theories alike in their usefulness? Of course not. Evaluating the usefulness or value of a
theory is important. Six qualities are crucial for evaluating theories—-scope, parsimony,
heuristic value, openness, appropriateness, and validity. As you recall, scope refers to the
extensiveness of the theory, parsimony to its level of simplicity, and heuristic value is the
theory’s ability to generate other theories. Openness refers recognizing other perspectives and
options. Appropriateness refers to the fit between the research question and theory used to
answer it. Finally, validity is the overall worth or practicality of a theory which includes value,
fit, and generalizability. When these characteristics are present we can be confident of our choice
of theory.
1.2.3 What makes a theory "good"?
Six criteria might be said to be properties of a strong theory.
1. Theoretical Scope
How general is the theory? That is, how widely applicable is it? In most cases, a theory that may
only be applied within a fairly narrow set of circumstances is not considered as useful as a theory
that encompasses a very wide range of communicative interactions. The ideal, of course, is a
theory that succinctly explains the nature of human communication as a whole.
2. Appropriateness
Theories are often evaluated based upon how well their assumptions relate to the issue or
question being explained. If a theory recapitulates its assumptions, it is not an effective theory.
3. Heuristic value

Some theories suggest the ways in which further research may be conducted. By presenting an
explanatory model, the theory generates questions or hypotheses that can be operationalized
relatively easily. In practical terms, the success of a theory may rest on how readily other
researchers may continue to do fruitful work in reaction or support.
4. Validity
It may seem obvious that for a theory to be good, it must also be valid. Validity refers to the
degree to which the theory accurately represents the true state of the world. Are the

5
arguments internally consistent and are its predictions and claims derived logically from its
assumptions? Many also require that theories be falsifiable; that is, theories that present
predictions that--if they prove to be incorrect--invalidate the theory. The absence of such
questions significantly reduces the value of the theory, since a theory that cannot be proven false
(perhaps) cannot be shown to be accurate, either.
5. Parsimony
The principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) dictates that a theory should provide the simplest
possible (viable) explanation for a phenomenon. Others suggest that good theory exhibits an
aesthetic quality, that a good theory is simple (as neither beauty nor nature can be complex}.
6. Openness
Theories, perhaps paradoxically, should not exist to the absolute exclusion of other theories.
Theory should not be dogma: it should encourage and provide both for disbelief and should--to
whatever degree possible--be well-matched with other accepted theory.
It is important to note that a theory is not "true," or "false" (despite the above discussion of
falsifiability), but rather better or worse at explaining the causes of a particular event.
Especially within the social sciences, we may find several different theories that each explains a
phenomenon in useful ways. There is value in being able to use theories as "lenses" through
which you can understand communication, and through which you can understand the world
together with other scholars.
1.3 Nature of Communication: Communication has the following features:

1. Two-way process: Communication is a two-way process of understanding between two or

more persons – sender and receiver. A person cannot communicate with himself.

2. Continuous process: Exchange of ideas and opinion amongst people is an ongoing process in
business and non-business organizations. Continuous interaction promotes understanding and
exchange of information relevant for decision-making.

3. Dynamic process: Communication between sender and receiver takes different forms and
medium depending upon their moods and behavior. It is, thus, a dynamic process that keeps
changing in different situations.

6
4. Pervasive: Communication is a pervasive activity. It takes place at all levels (top, middle,
low) in all functional areas and different organizations.
5. Two people: A minimum of two persons — sender and receiver — must be present for
communication to take place. It may be between superiors, subordinates and peer group,…
6. Exchange: Communication involves exchange of ideas and opinions. People interact and
develop understanding for each other.
7. Means of unifying organizational activities: Communication unifies internal organizational
environment with its external environment. It also integrates the human and physical resources
and converts them into organizational output.
8. Verbal and non-verbal: Though words are active carriers of information, gestures can
sometimes be more powerful than words. Facial expressions, sounds, signs and symbols are the
non-verbal forms of communication.
9. Mutual understanding: Communication is effective when sender and receiver develop
mutual understanding of the subject. Messages conveyed should be understood by the receiver in
the desired sense.
10. Goal-oriented: Communication is goal-oriented. Unless the receiver and sender know the
purpose they intend to achieve through communication, it has little practical utility/usefulness.
11. Foundation of management: Though communication is a directing function, it is important
for other managerial functions also. Designing plans and organization structures, motivating
people to accomplish goals and controlling organizational activities; all require communication
amongst managers at various levels.
12. A means, not an end: Communication is not an end. Effective communication is a means
towards achieving the end, that is, goal accomplishment. It smoothens managerial operations by
facilitating planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling functions.
13. Human activity: Since communication makes accomplishment of organizational goals
possible, it is essential that people understand and like each other. If people do not understand
each other’s’ viewpoint, there cannot be effective communication.
14. Inter-disciplinary: Communication is the art of how communicators use knowledge of
different fields of study like anthropology, psychology and sociology. Making best use of these
disciplines makes communication effective. It is, thus, an inter-disciplinary area of management.

7
1.4 THE TYPES OF COMMUNICATION
There are several distinct types of communication we engage in on a daily basis. These different
levels of communication, while distinct from each other in some ways, also tend to overlap each
other in some cases. They might also be distinguished by the role that the key element of
feedback plays in each type of communication.
Intrapersonal Communication
Any communication that transpires within an individual is defined as intrapersonal
communication. Intrapersonal communication is communication that occurs in our own minds.
Intrapersonal communication is characterized by a lack of feedback from another individual and
exists when a person interacts and responds to his or her environment only, with no
communication or feedback from another individual. Examples of intrapersonal communication
would include thinking, daydreaming, meditating, or even “talking to oneself” when engaging in
an “internal conversation” with no other persons present. Interpersonal Communication that
occurs during a “face-to-face” conversation or interaction is called interpersonal communication.
Interpersonal communication is characterized by immediate or direct feedback from another
individual or group of people. While interpersonal communication is often a one-on-one
interaction between two people, elements of interpersonal communication are also present during
group interaction. When we are engaged in a conversation with another person, we are making
continuous and constant eye contact. It is also common for us to provide feedback with facial
expressions and even tone of voice, or paralanguage.
The key to interpersonal communication is that the feedback is instantaneous and direct; when
we ask somebody a question, that person might respond with either a verbal response (language)
or even a nod of the head (nonverbal).
Group Communication
Communication that takes place between three or more persons in a group setting or context is
called group communication. Often this type of communication is also referred to as small-group
communication because each member in the group is able to communicate with one another
face-to-face during each group meeting. Scholars often disagree as to the number of people
required to constitute a group, but a group might be defined as at least three people engaged in

8
some decision-making, problem-solving, or policy-recommendation situation. Group
communication also includes elements of interpersonal communication because of the close
physical proximity of the members of the group. The rule of thumb for group communication is
that the more individuals in any group, the less personal the feedback or communication. Think
about a large introductory lecture course at a typical college or university. It is common for those
classes to have between 100–300 students. The professor is at the bottom of a large lecture hall
with a microphone, and students are stacked up in stadium-style seating. This is surely not very
conducive for effective communication or feedback between the students and the professor.
Compare this with a class of 20 students in a public speaking seminar. The communication is far
more personal, and the feedback is direct and immediate. There is far greater opportunity in a
smaller class for the professor to give individual attention to each student in the class.
Nonverbal Communication
Any communication that does not involve the written or spoken word is defined as nonverbal
communication. We typically think about a person’s body language when discussing this form of
communication. Much of our communication is nonverbal in nature, which includes the use of
gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, body type, dress/clothing, touch, paralanguage (tone of
voice), territoriality (physical and social space), artifacts (objects that communicate, such as
jewelry), and seating arrangement. Everything from tone of voice, gestures, eye contact, and
body language affects our delivery in the presentation of speeches and panel discussions or
public debates.
Mass Communication
In our contemporary, democratic society, mass communication plays a crucial role. Mass
communication involves a person or organization that disseminates a message though mass
media (such as television, radio, the Internet, or social media) to reach other individuals in the
population at the same time. The development of the Internet and social media has changed the
nature of mass communication from a one-way process (from a source to a public) to a dynamic
process where everyone has the ability to create, distribute, and respond to information. The use
of social media has made the dissemination of mediated messages more immediate and
personalized. Individuals no longer have to wait for someone else to lead a cause, coordinate an
effort, or raise public awareness. Social media has made these efforts easier and further
demonstrates the democratic society we live in.

9
Intercultural Communication
Communication that examines human communication or behavior between people of different
races, ethnic backgrounds, and cultures is called intercultural communication or cross-cultural
communication.
We cannot assume that all people share the same values, beliefs, and perspectives on issues, and
this must be taken into account when persons with different ethnic backgrounds and cultures
communicate. Effective speakers are able to understand and adapt messages to a multicultural
audience. This is especially true when we take nonverbal communication into account. For
example, certain gestures have different meanings in different cultures. While the smile (facial
expression) might be one of the very few universal gestures, the “V” for victory sign does not
necessarily translate across cultures or nations. In addition, certain aspects of communication,
like touch, eye contact, or even acceptable physical space between two people during a
conversation, can vary greatly between persons of different cultures.
1.5 The Goals/Purposes of Communication (Reasons Why People Communicate)
There are three distinct reasons for engaging in communication behavior.
To Increase Our Personal Awareness
First, we communicate with others to increase our personal awareness. Communication is
essential in our efforts to gain knowledge and understanding. Most people attend college to
receive a general education, as well as specific, intensive knowledge about a specific discipline
or field of study. Also, when we interact with others, especially those persons from other
cultures, races, and backgrounds, we learn
valuable information and lessons from these encounters.
To Improve Our Social and Professional Relationships

Another reason we communicate is to improve our social and professional relationships. That
is, we communicate to make friends and acquaintances, and establish relationships that
hopefully will last a lifetime. Communication is essential to our personal, social, and
professional relationships with others. Whether we consider the interaction between a group
of close friends, in our family, in a successful marriage, or between business associates, it

10
 becomes obvious that communication is the element required to make those relationships
successful and fulfilling.

To Change Other People’s Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes

Finally, we communicate to change other people’s beliefs, values, and attitudes. Once again, we
must stress the persuasive nature of communication as an attempt to influence others in a variety
of personal, social, and professional contexts or situations. We might attempt to “empower”
others by giving them knowledge, skills, or a particular area of expertise.
Similarly, we might try to change someone’s belief on an issue such as the death penalty or
genetic engineering, or convince our boss to give us a pay raise. Whatever our goals and
objectives might be, communication is the tool we use to influence others and move others to
action.

Chapter 2: Intrapersonal Communication Theories

2.1 Symbolic interaction theory
Symbolic interaction is one of many theories in social sciences. This theory claims that facts
are based on and directed by symbols. The foundation of this theory is meanings. Symbolic
interaction examines the meanings emerging from the reciprocal interaction of individuals in
social environment with other individuals and focuses on the question of “which symbols and
meanings emerge from the interaction between people?” Symbolic interaction theory has
developed in the light of the theorists such as Dewey (1930), Cooley (1902), Parks (1915), Mead
(1934, 1938), etc. Symbolic interactionists demonstrate differences in respect of their points of
view.
All interactionists agree that the source of data is human interaction. Moreover, there is a
general agreement among the symbolic interactionists that perspectives and empathy developing
abilities of participants are the key subjects of symbolic interaction (Stryker & Vryan, 2003;
Berg, 2000).
Schenk and Holman (1980) state that symbolic interaction is a dynamic theory because
according to this theory objects feature meanings within them and individuals formulate their
activities in the direction of their evaluation of themselves and also people and objects around
them. Thus, it is the social actors that attribute meaning to objects according to this perspective.

11
George Herbert Mead believes that mind and ego are products of society. Mead assumes that
symbols develop mind and they are used as means for thinking and communication (Ashworth,
2000). Mead focused on how people interact in their daily lives by means of symbolic interaction
and how they create order and meaning (Korgen & White, 2008). Blumer, who is a student of
Mead, is the first one to use symbolic interaction term. For that reason he is also named as the
founder of symbolic interaction.

Thomas (1928) says “it is not important whether interpretation is accurate or not”. He believes
that fact is based on personal perceptions and changes in time (Berg, 2000).

There are three core principles in symbolic interaction perspective of Blumer: Meaning,
language (language provides means [symbols] for debating meaning) and thinking principle.
Symbolic interaction theory acknowledges the principle of meaning as the center of human
behavior. Language provides a meaning to humans by means of symbols. It is symbol that
differentiates social relations of humans from the level of communication of animals. Human
beings give meaning to symbols and they express these things by means of language.
Consequently, symbols form the basis of communication. In other words, symbols are crucial
elements for the formation of any kind of communication act. As the last principle in the
symbolic interaction perspective thinking changes the interpretation of individuals pertaining to
symbols (Nelson, 1998). Symbolic interaction is based on three basic propositions according to
Blumer (Poloma, 1999: 224-225; Tye & Tye, 1992: 36); (a) Humans develop their attitudes
towards things according to the meanings that things suggest to them. (b) These meanings are
inferred from the “interaction of one of them from its viewers”. (c) These meanings change
within an interpretive process.

2.2 Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model
of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid.

The original hierarchy of needs five stage models includes:

12
Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some
needs take precedence over others. Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be
the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what
motivates us, and so on.
1. Biological/Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g.
air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep. If these needs are not satisfied the human
body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered physiological needs the most important as
all the other needs become secondary until these needs are met.
2. Safety needs - once an individual’s physiological needs are satisfied, the needs for security
and safety become salient/prominent. People want to experience order, predictability and control
in their lives. These needs can be fulfilled by the family and society (e.g. police, schools,
business and medical care). For example, emotional security, financial security (e.g.
employment, social welfare), law and order, freedom from fear social stability, property, health
and wellbeing (e.g. safety against accidents and injury).
3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled; the
third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. Belongingness refers
to a human emotional need for interpersonal relationships, affiliating, connectedness, and being
part of a group. Examples of belongingness needs include friendship, intimacy, trust, and
acceptance, receiving and giving affection, and love.
4. Esteem needs are the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy and include self-confidence,
accomplishment and respect. Maslow classified esteem needs into two categories: (i) esteem for
oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or
respect from others (e.g., status, prestige). Maslow indicated that the need for respect or
reputation is most important for children and adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or
dignity.
5. Self-actualization needs are the highest level in Maslow's hierarchy, and refer to the
realization of a person's potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak
experiences. Maslow (1943) describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one
can, to become the most that one can be. Individuals may perceive or focus on this need very
specifically. For example, one individual may have a strong desire to become a model parent. In

13
another, the desire may be expressed economically, academically or athletically. For others, it
may be expressed creatively, in paintings, pictures, or inventions.

5.1 Characteristics of self-actualizers:

1. They perceive reality efficiently and can tolerate uncertainty;
2. Accept themselves and others for what they are;
3. Spontaneous in thought and action;
4. Problem-centered (not self-centered);
5. Unusual sense of humor;
6. Able to look at life objectively;
7. Highly creative;
8. Resistant to enculturation, but not purposely unconventional;
9. Concerned for the welfare of humanity;
10. Capable of deep appreciation of basic life-experience;
11. Establish deep satisfying interpersonal relationships with a few people;
12. Peak experiences;
13. Need for privacy;
14. Democratic attitudes;
15. Strong moral/ethical standards.
5.2 Behavior leading to self-actualization:

(a) Experiencing life like a child, with full absorption and concentration;
(b) Trying new things instead of sticking to safe paths;
(c) Listening to your own feelings in evaluating experiences instead of the voice of tradition,
authority or the majority;
(d) Avoiding pretense ('game playing') and being honest;
(e) Being prepared to be unpopular if your views do not coincide with those of the majority;
(f) Taking responsibility and working hard;

14
5.3 Summary of hierarchy of needs

(a) Human beings are motivated by a hierarchy of needs.

(b) Needs are organized in a hierarchy of prepotency in which more basic needs must be more or
less met (rather than all or none) prior to higher needs.

(c) The order of needs is not rigid but instead may be flexible based on external circumstances or
individual differences.

(d) Most behavior is multi-motivated, that is, simultaneously determined by more than one basic
need.

2. 3. Attribution Theory
In the following section, attribution is discussed as part of social perception/cognition.
Additionally, six different theoretical traditions that form the backbone of attribution theory are
discussed in terms of their role in social psychology as well as their applicability in consumer
behavior research.
2. 3.1 Attribution as part of social perception/cognition
Every day, people encounter events or situations that require explanation (Fiske & Taylor,
1991:22; Försterling, 2001:4). They often ask questions relating to why certain things happened
to them. Part of their perceptual process is aimed at interpreting the reasons for events (Williams,
1982:70-71). Under circumstances where events are considered to be insignificant, the
attribution process may be almost automatic. However, there are many circumstances in which
causal analyses are more intentional, deliberate and time-consuming (Weiner, 1985; Fiske &
Taylor, 1991:22).
After all, people typically do not ask why they did well in an examination, or why they received
warm greetings from a friend, but rather why they failed and why they received rejection from a
friend (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:22; Weiner, 2000).
Individuals are more likely to engage in attributional reasoning when they are surprised or
threatened by unexpected or negative events that undermine their beliefs and expectations
(Weiner, 1986:121,127; Hewstone, 1989:45; Fiske & Taylor, 1991:22; O’Malley & Tech, 1996;
Bougie, Pieters & Zeelenberg, 2003). Therefore, attributions can also be considered as cognitive

15
schemata/plans that are only consciously examined when unexpected (schema-inconsistent)
events happen (Försterling, 2001:18).
Attribution theory is a collection of diverse theoretical and empirical contributions that focus
upon the universal concern with explanation – why a particular event, or state or outcome has
occurred and the consequences of phenomenal causality (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:23; Weiner,
2000; Darmon, 2005).
Thus, attribution theorists are not concerned with the actual causes of behavior, but focus more
on the perceived causes of behavior. They assume that there are systematic processes by which
attributions are made and that the attributions that people arrive at, influence subsequent
behavior and emotional reactions (Folkes, 1988; Davis & Lennon, 1991; Försterling, 2001:3;
Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003).
2.3.2 Theories of attribution
The following discussion elaborates on the six different theoretical traditions that form the basis
of what is now termed attribution theory: Heider’s theory of naive psychology, Jones and Davis’
correspondent inference theory, Kelley’s work on co-variation, Bem’s work on self-perception,
Schachter’s theory of emotional lability and Weiner’s attributional theory (Sirgy, 1883:4; Fiske
& Taylor, 1991:24; Swanson & Kelley, 2001).
Previously, the theories of Heider, Jones and Davis, and Kelley were generally considered as the
“major attribution theories” (Mizerski et al., 1979) or “classic versions of attribution theory”
(Davis & Lennon, 1991), all of which are general models of causal inference. Later on,
additional attributional formulations were developed by Schachter, Bem and Weiner. Schachter
and Bem’s respective theories extended attribution ideas into the sphere of self-perception.
Weiner’s attributional theories of achievement and helping have been useful in identifying a set
of focal dimensions along which attributions may be inferred, and in integrating attributional
dimensions with emotional responses (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:41).
Finally, there are essentially three areas of study within the realm of attribution theory: person
perception, self-perception and event or object perception (Mizerski et al., 1979:123; Schiffman
& Kanuk, 2007:265-267).
2. 3.2.1 Overview of Heider’s theory of naive psychology
Heider viewed people as “naïve psychologists” (untrained observers) with an innate need to
make sense of the action of others or to assign causality for behavioral events (Hewstone,

16
1989:12; Davis & Lennon, 1991). Heider argued that, in order to explain events, people need to
make some kind of inference about either the person or the environment (Lennon & Davis,
1989).
He therefore proposed that there are two ways to explain the causes of events. Firstly, internal
attributions where the causes are attributed to factors within the individual (personal factors
explained e.g. ability, effort, intention). And secondly, external attributions, where the individual
attributes the cause to the environment or situation (task-related factors, luck) explained.
2.3.2.2 Jones and Davis’s correspondence of inference theory
Jones and Davis’s model of attributional processes examines how the social perceiver makes
attributions about the causes of other people’s behavior (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:26). According to
their theory of correspondent inference, the goal of the attribution process is to make
correspondent inferences about another person: to reach the conclusions that the observed
behavior and the intention that produced it correspond to some underlying stable personality
characteristic/quality within the person, i.e., a disposition. Differently stated, correspondent
inference refers to the perceiver’s judgment that the actor’s behavior is caused by, or corresponds
to, a particular trait that remains fairly stable over time. A simple example of such an inference is
to assign someone’s aggressive behavior to the trait hostility.
According to Jones and Davis, individuals focus their attention on certain types of actions –
those most likely to be informative – when obtaining information about other people, for making
attributions. Firstly, people only consider behaviors when that behavior occurs by choice, while
behaviors that were constrained and forced on the person in question tend to be ignored.
Secondly, people pay attention to actions that produce non-common or distinctive effects, i.e.
outcomes that would not be produced by any other outcome. Behavior that is considered
consistent with social roles or prior exceptions will be ignored.
Finally, people pay more attention to actions that are low in social desirability than to actions
that are high on this dimension (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:32; Baron, Byrne & Branscombe,
2000:93-94).
2.3.2.3 Kelley’s co-variance model
Kelley developed the co-variation model of how individuals form causal inference when they
have access to multiple instances of similar events. In trying to understand the cause of some

17
effect, people observe its co-variation with various potential causes and attribute the effect to the
cause with which it most closely co-varies.
Co-variation is the observed co-occurrence of two events (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:33, 55).
Differently stated, the cause of any outcome is likely to be found in the temporal sequence with
the outcome (Davis & Lennon, 1991). Thus, people attribute an effect to something that varies
when the outcome varies – it is present when the outcome is present and absent when the
outcome is absent (Lennon & Davis, 1989). For example, if a person gets cross every time he/she
is confronted with a specific situation, a high co-variation exists. However, if a person gets cross
only sometimes when he/she is confronted with a specific situation and also sometimes when
he/she is not confronted with the specific situation, a low co-variation exists.

According to Kelley, people assess co-variation information across three dimensions relevant to
the entity whose behavior they are trying to explain (Mizerski et al., 1979; Lennon & Davis,
1989; Fiske & Taylor, 1991:55; Kelley in Baron et al., 2000:95). In this context, an entity refers
to another person or a thing. Firstly, consensus refers to the commonality of the event, the extent
to which other persons react in the same manner to some stimulus or event as the person under
consideration does. High consensus means others receive the same treatment; low consensus
means the event is specific to the person. Secondly, consistency refers to the stability of the event
– the extent to which the person reacts to this stimulus or event in the same way on other
occasions. High consistency means the event occurs regularly when the person or situation is
present; low consistency means the event occurs infrequently. Thirdly, distinctiveness refers to
the uniqueness of the event – the extent to which the person reacts in the same manner to other,
different stimuli or events. High distinctiveness means the event is specific to the situation; low
distinctiveness means that the event occurs in many situations (Kelley in Baron et al., 2000:95;
Ployhart & Harold, 2004).
According to this model, the combination of these three sources of information must lead to a
specific attribution. Kelley’s theory suggests that individuals are most likely to attribute another
person’s behavior to internal causes under conditions in which consensus and distinctiveness are
low but consistency is high. In contrast, people are most likely to attribute another person’s
behavior to external causes under condition in which consensus; consistency and distinctiveness
are all high. Finally, individuals usually attribute behavior to a combination of these factors

18
under conditions in which consensus is low but consistency and distinctiveness are high (Baron

et al., 2000:95).

2.3.2.4 Bem’s self-perception theory

Just as people attempt to explain the behavior of others, they attempt to understand and attribute
causes for their own actions. According to Bem’s self-perception theory, the process of self-
perception is similar to the process of the perception of others. Since people like to be perceived
by themselves and others as rational beings, they often try to explain their own attitudes and
internal states, such as emotions, in part by inferring them from the observation of their own
behavior and the circumstances in which the behavior occurs (Bem in Lennon & Davis, 1989;
Bem in Fiske & Taylor, 1991:45-46). Furthermore, people infer their attitudes and other internal
states in much the same way as they make attributions about other people’s attitudes and internal
states (Lennon & Davis, 1989; Fiske & Taylor, 1991:45). Bem’s research suggests that
individuals form attributional biases, whereby success is perceived as being due to one’s owns
ability/efforts, and failures are perceived as being due to external factors (Norberg & Dholakia,
2004).
2.3.2.5 Schachter’s theory of emotional lability
Schachter’s work is notable for extending attribution ideas to self-perception, especially the self-
perception of emotion. Schachter’s theory of emotion suggests that people label feelings of
encouragement in accordance with external information. Misattribution of arousal to neutral
cases can reduce emotional reactions. Schachter’s theory of emotional lability examines
attributions for emotional states. He argued that internal physiological cues are often ambiguous
and consequently may be labeled as consistent with any of several emotions or sources of
arousal. Support for the emotional lability argument, however, is mixed (Fiske & Taylor,
1991:55).

2.3.2.6 Weiner’s attributional theory

Weiner’s work on attribution theory is prominent, primarily for developing the scopes of
attributional experience, integrating attribution with emotional processes and enlightening the
attributional and affective experience that motivate achievement behavior and other concrete
domains of experience (Fiske & Taylor, 1991:55-56). Weiner further elaborated on Heider’s

19
seminal concepts by developing an improved multi-dimensional approach to the structure of
perceived causality (i.e. causal dimensions) – he emphasized other dimensions or properties of
causality (Folkes, 1988; Hewstone, 1989:32-33; Weiner, 1990:6; Försterling, 2001:111;
Swanson & Kelley, 2001).
Weiner’s attributional theory of achievement motivation, describes basic dimensions that people
use to understand their success and failure: internal or external locus, stability over time and
controllability. These dimensions in turn provoke basic emotions, as well as expectations for
future outcomes. Together these emotions and expectations guide behavior (Weiner, 1986:164;
Folkes, 1988; Fiske & Taylor, 1991:429). Although Weiner’s work was developed initially to
explain achievement behavior and later extended into a more general theory of human
motivation (Folkes, 1988), several researchers in other domains have successfully applied these
dimensions in their analyses of different situations (Weiner in Folkes, 1984; Fiske & Taylor,
1991:54, 56).

2. 4. Constructivist Learning Theory

Constructivism
What is meant by constructivism? The term refers to the idea that learners construct knowledge
for themselves---each learner individually (and socially) constructs meaning as he or she learns.
Constructing meaning is learning; there is no other kind.
2.4.1 Principles of learning
What are some guiding principles of constructivist thinking that we must keep in mind when we
consider our role as educators? Here are some ideas, all predicated on the belief that learning
consists of individuals' constructed meanings and then indicate how they influence academy
education.
1. Learning is an active process in which the learner uses sensory input and constructs
meaning out of it. The more traditional formulation of this idea involves the terminology of the
active learner (Dewey's term) stressing that the learner needs to do something; that learning is
not the passive acceptance of knowledge which exists "out there" but that learning involves the
learners' engaging with the world.
2. People learn to learn as they learn: learning consists both of constructing meaning and
constructing systems of meaning. For example, if we learn the chronology of dates of a series of

20
historical events, we are simultaneously learning the meaning of a chronology. Each meaning we
construct makes us better able to give meaning to other sensations which can fit a similar pattern.
3. The crucial action of constructing meaning is mental:
Physical actions, practical experience may be necessary for learning, especially for children, but
it is not sufficient; we need to provide activities which engage the mind as well as the hands.
(Dewey called this reflective activity.)
4. Learning involves language: the language we use influences learning. On the empirical level,
researchers have noted that people talk to themselves as they learn. On a more general level,
there is a collection of arguments, presented most forcefully by Vigotsky, that language and
learning are inextricably intertwined. This point was clearly emphasized in Elaine Gurain's
reference to the need to honor native language in developing North American exhibits. The
desire to have material and programs in their own language was an important request by many
members of various Native American communities.
5. Learning is a social activity: our learning is intimately associated with our connection with
other human beings, our teachers, our peers, our family as well as casual acquaintances,
including the people before us or next to us at the exhibit. We are more likely to be successful in
our efforts to educate if we recognize this principle rather than try to avoid it. Much of traditional
education, as Dewey pointed out, is directed towards isolating the learner from all social
interaction, and towards seeing education as a one-on one relationship between the learner and
the objective material to be learned. In contrast, progressive education (to continue to use
Dewey's formulation) recognizes the social aspect of learning and uses conversation, interaction
with others, and the application of knowledge as an integral aspect of learning.
6. Learning is contextual: we do not learn isolated facts and theories in some abstract ethereal
land of the mind separate from the rest of our lives: we learn in relationship to what else we
know, what we believe, our prejudices and our fears. On reflection, it becomes clear that this
point is actually a corollary of the idea that learning is active and social. We cannot divorce our
learning from our lives.
7. One needs knowledge to learn: it is not possible to assimilate new knowledge without having
some structure developed from previous knowledge to build on. The more we know, the more
we can learn. Therefore any effort to teach must be connected to the state of the learner, must
provide a path into the subject for the learner based on that learner's previous knowledge.

21
8. It takes time to learn: learning is not instantaneous. For significant learning we need to
revisit ideas, consider them try them out, play with them and use them. This cannot happen in the
5-10 minutes usually spent in a gallery (and certainly not in the few seconds usually spent
contemplating a single museum object.) If you reflect on anything you have learned, you soon
realize that it is the product of repeated exposure and thought. Even, or especially, moments of
profound insight, can be traced back to longer periods of preparation.
9. Motivation is a key component in learning. Not only is it the case that motivation helps
learning, it is essential for learning. This idea of motivation as described here is broadly
conceived to include an understanding of ways in which the knowledge can be used. Unless we
know "the reasons why", we may not be very involved in using the knowledge that may be
instilled in us. Even by the most severe and direct teaching.
Chapter 3 Group and Intercultural Communication Theory
3.1 Group Communication Theory
As humans, we are social beings. We naturally form relationships with others. In fact,
relationships are often noted as one of the most important aspects of a person’s life, and they
exist in many forms. Interpersonal communication occurs between two people, but group
communication may involve two or more individuals. Groups are a primary context for
interaction within the business community. Groups may have heroes and enemies, sages
alongside new members. Groups overlap, and may share common goals, but may also engage in
conflict. Groups can be supportive or coercive, and can exert powerful influences over
individuals.
Within a group, individuals may behave in distinct ways, use unique or specialized terms, or
display symbols that have meaning to that group. Those same terms or symbols may be
confusing, meaningless, or even unacceptable to another group. An individual may belong to
both groups, adapting his or her communication patterns to meet group normative expectations.
Groups are increasingly important across social media venues, and there are many examples of
successful business ventures on the web that value and promote group interaction.
Groups use words to exchange meaning, establish territory, and identify who is a stranger versus
who is a trusted member. Are you familiar with the term “troll”? It is often used to identify
someone who is not a member of an online group or community, who does not share the values
and beliefs of the group, and who posts a message in an online discussion board to initiate flame

22
wars, cause disruption, or otherwise challenge the group members. Members often use words to
respond to the challenge that are not otherwise common in the discussions, and the less than
flattering descriptions of the troll are a rallying point.
Groups have existed throughout human history, and continue to follow familiar patterns across
emerging venues as we adapt to technology, computer-mediated interaction, suburban sprawl,
and modern life. We need groups, and groups need us. Our relationship with groups warrants
attention on this interdependence as we come to know ourselves, our communities, and our
world.
3.1.1 What Is a Group?
Let’s get into a time machine and travel way, way back to join early humans in prehistoric times.
Their needs are like ours today: they cannot exist or thrive without air, food, and water—and a
sense of belonging. How did they meet these needs? Through cooperation and competition, we
meet these needs. If food scarcity was an issue, who got more and who got less? This serves as
our first introduction to roles, status and power, and hierarchy within a group. When food
scarcity becomes an issue, who gets to keep their spoon? In some Latin American cultures,
having a job or earning a living is referred to by the slang term “cuchara,” which literally means
“spoon” and figuratively implies food, safety, and security.
Now let’s return to the present and enter a modern office. Cubicles define territories, and corner
offices denote status. In times of economic recession or slumping sales for the company, there is
a greater need for cooperation, and there is competition for scarce resources. The loss of a
“spoon”—or of one’s cubicle—may now come in the form of a pink slip of paper instead of no
food around the fire, but it is no less devastating.
We form self-identities through our communication with others, and much of that interaction
occurs in a group context. A group may be defined as three or more individuals who affiliate,
interact or cooperate in a familial, social, or work context.
Group communication may be defined as the exchange of information with those who are alike
culturally, linguistically, and/or geographically. Group members may be known by their
symbols, such as patches and insignia on a military uniform. They may be known by their use of
specialized language or jargon; for example, someone in information technology may use the
term “server” in reference to the internet, whereas someone in the food service industry may use
“server” to refer to the worker who takes customer orders in a restaurant. Group members may

23
also be known by their proximity, as in gated communities. Regardless of how the group defines
itself, and regardless of the extent to which its borders are porous or permeable, a group
recognizes itself as a group. Humans naturally make groups a part of their context or
environment.
3.1.2 Types of Groups in the Workplace
Primary and Secondary Groups There are fundamentally two types of groups that can be
observed in many contexts, from church, to school, from family to work: primary and secondary
groups. The hierarchy denotes the degree to which the group(s) meets your interpersonal needs.
Primary groups meet most, if not all, of one’s needs. Groups that meet some, but not all, needs
are called secondary groups. Secondary groups often include work groups, where the goal is to
complete a task or solve a problem. If you are a member of the sales department, your purpose is
to sell.
In terms of problem-solving, work groups can accomplish more than individuals. People, each of
whom have specialized skills, talents, experience, or education come together in new
combinations with new challenges, find new perspectives to create unique approaches that they
themselves would not have formulated alone.
Secondary groups may meet your need for professional acceptance, and celebrate your success,
but may not meet your need for understanding and sharing on a personal level. Family members
may understand you in ways that your co-workers cannot, and vice versa.
3.2 Intercultural Communication Theory
3.2.1 THE MEANING OF CULTURE
Culture is the way of life of a people. It is social system which comprises the values, norms and
ways of behaving in a human society. Wang, Brislin, Wang, Williams and Chao (2000) defined
culture as the human part of the environment.‟ In other words, culture is the non-biological
aspects of life (The teaching and learning unit, University of Melbourne 2000).
This definition connotes that everything people learn and do that are not related to their
biological traits are, aspects of such peoples’ culture.
The concepts of culture and communication are strongly related, in the sense that, an individual
cannot learn or acquire any aspect of culture without going through the process of
communication. Culture is something that is learnt from parents, schools, the media and the

24
broader community. (Melbourne University: 2000). From the above, we can rightly say that,
culture is a product of communication.
Also, communication being the basic feature of human life plays the most vital role in shaping
human culture and the ways of acquiring them. Singer (1998) defined culture from an angle that
portrays the strong bond between culture and communication, when he said: „a pattern of
learned, group related perceptions including both verbal and non-verbal language, attitudes,
values, belief systems, disbelief systems and behaviors that is accepted and expected by an
identity group.‟

3.2.2 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION DEFINED

Basically, intercultural communication means communication across different cultural
boundaries. This means that, when two or more people with different cultural backgrounds
interact and communicate with each other or one another, intercultural communication is said to
have taken place. For example, communication between Sidama and Oromo cultural groups is
an intercultural communication, because, it occurs across cultural boundaries. Intercultural
communication can thus be defined as „the sharing of information on different levels of
awareness and control between people with different cultural backgrounds, where different
cultural backgrounds include both national cultural differences and differences which are
connected with participation in the different activities that exist within a national unit‟ (Jens
Allwood, 1985). „Intercultural communication takes place when individuals influenced by
different cultural communities negotiate shared meaning in interactions‟ (Ting-Toomey, S. 1999,
in commGAP). What counts as intercultural communication depends, in part, to what one
considers a culture.
Some authorities like Gudykunst, limit the term intercultural communication to refer only to
„communication among individuals from different nationalities‟ (Gudykunst, W.B; 2003). Other
authorities, such as Judith and Nakayama, in contrast, expand the notion of intercultural
communication to encompass inter-ethnic, inter-religious and even inter-regional
communication, as well as communication among individuals of different sexual orientations.
Russell Arent, in his‟ Bridging the Cross-cultural Gap‟, expatiate in the following,”
When we talk of other cultures, we mean not only those who speak a language that is different
from ours or who live in a different country or region; we also mean those who live in the same

25
city or region but who do not share the same social groups. For example, a 14-year-old teenager
does not typically communicate the same way as an 82-year-old senior citizen. Even if they were
born and raised in the same neighborhood (in the city or in a rural area), their conservation could
be just as “intercultural” as two people who came from opposite corners of the globe because
they are from two subcultures,” (Arent, R. 2009).
3.2.3 The Importance of Studying Intercultural Communication
The chances for contacts with people from other cultures have increased dramatically with
changes in the workplace. US business expanding into world markets in a process of
globalization, people now connected, via answering machines, faxes, emails, electronic bulletin
boards, and the internet to other people whom they have never met face-to-face. The ever-
increasing mobility of U.S families and the changing demography within the U.S. and changing
immigration patterns as well. It is precisely this increased contact that makes studying
intercultural communication so important.
Below is the list of the importance of studying intercultural communication
 Understanding your own identity.
 Enhancing personal and social interactions.
 Solving misunderstandings, miscommunications & mistrust.
 Enhancing and enriching the quality of civilization.
 Becoming effective citizens of our national communities.
Understanding your own identity: - The first reason for studying intercultural communication
is to develop sensitivity to various cultural heritages and backgrounds to better understand your
own identity. In her book “Torn Between Two Cultures”, Maryam Qudrat Ased says, “It was
through the experience of living and being raised in the U.S that I came to truly appreciate and
understand my own religion, heritage, culture & language.
Your decisions about the values you want to adopt or continue holding, the lifestyles or
orientations you wish to pursue, and even the friends you want to have, not to mention the major
occupation or profession you desire, are affected by racial, cultural, gender and social-class
factors that affect your personal identity, who you are and who you want to be.”
Enhancing personal and social interactions: - The broader you outlook, the more tolerant and
accommodating you become. The chances of having close, personal, interactions with those
different from you - whether in age, physical ability, gender, ethnicity, class, religion, race, or

26
nationality – are increasing daily. Such relationship help you learn about the world, break
stereotypes, and acquire new skills.
Solving misunderstandings, miscommunications and mistrust: - Until recently our nation has
not learned, nor has it needed to learn, to be multi-culturally competent. The study of
intercultural communication will not just unlock doors closed for generations; it will open those
doors and, thus, resolve misunderstandings, miscommunications and mistrust through honest,
open, positive, healthy communication. People not only fear, but they also distrust the unknown.
Trust is gained through knowledge and understanding.
Enhancing and enriching the quality of civilization: - Recognizing and respecting ethnic and
cultural diversity are important steps on the road to valuing the ways in which diversity enhances
& enriches the quality of our civilization. According to Carlos Cortes “many multiculturalists
today seem unwilling to deal with growing factor of intermarriage. Too much of multicultural
education is frozen into a kind of group purity paradigm, when in fact; intermarriage is one of the
enormous changes that are taking place in America. For example, one third of all Latinos born in
the U.S., how many know someone who is not Latino. What will these cultural blends be like?”
In 2002 there were 1, 674, 000 interracial marriages, close to a 40 percent increase in 22 years
when you consider the potential for the new perspectives, cultural insights, and unique wisdom
that intermarriages can produce, there is no doubt about the corresponding increase in the quality
of our civilization.
Becoming effective citizens of our National communities; - National communities are co-
cultural groupings within the country. National communities were established from the
beginning as “Our forefathers acquired the lands of Native Americans, 34 percent of the territory
of Mexico in 1848, and the island of Puerto Rico in 1898” prior to the 1960s, most of the
immigrants to the U.S. came from Europe, but of the million or so immigrants who now enter the
U.S. every year, 90 percent are from Latin America and Asia. A study by the population
Reference Bureau suggests that by 2050 the U.S will be a global society in which nearly half of
all citizens will be from today’s racial and ethnic minorities.

27
3.3 Emergency model of Decision Theory
Fisher's Theory of Decision Emergence
Fisher's theory of decision emergence includes four phases which a group goes through in the
decision making process. According to Fisher the distribution of different tasks and decision
making changes a team and, when managed successfully, it makes the team stronger.
 The first phase is the orientation phase, where team members establish relationships but
also tensions. Effective communication is very important in this phase but it is also quite
difficult because team members may not know each other well enough for complete trust
to exist.
 Next comes the conflict phase. New ideas will be discussed and there may well be
significant tension as the proposers and champions of alternative approaches interact. If a
natural order within the team emerges then a strong team can result. However, in some
teams the conflict continues and competing factions can form.
 The next phase is emergence, where the outcome of the conflict phase takes form. During
this phase some people may need to soften their positions so as not to seem dominating.
Individuals may need to put the interests of the team above their own personal needs and
decisions.
 The final phase is the reinforcement phase. Here all members of the team need to commit
to the objectives and plans, whether they agree with them personally or not.

This theory is evident within all of our teambuilding activities.

It is particularly significant in our NASA activity where teams are given a crash landing scenario
and are required to rate a list of items needed in importance from 1 -15. First comes orientation
where they discuss the scenario, then comes conflict as each member argues their reasoning for
putting the items in the order that they believe. Emergence follows as each member realizes that
not everyone can be correct.
Listening to each individual point of view is important here in order to reach the final phase of
reinforcement where the team regroup and agree on the end result, regardless of whether they
would have personally come to the same conclusion if working alone.
Conclusion

28
In some cases, where conflict is low, this process will be relatively easy. However, there can be
significant disagreement at the various stages that Fisher proposes and the team may become
stuck in that phase.
Breaking down the progress of a team through a task in this way is useful because it helps people
to understand the stage their team is at and identify specifically what the problem might be and
how they might solve it.
Fisher’s theory covers similar ground to Tuckman’s very popular Forming Storming Norming
Performing model. It is worth putting the two side by side and deciding which resonates more
with your particular situation. In some cases it may be appropriate to discuss both with your
team.
3.4 Groupthink: A Concurrence-Seeking Tendency
Janis originally defined groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are
deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their
motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." According to his definition,
groupthink occurs only when cohesiveness is high. It requires that members share a strong "we-
feeling" of solidarity and desire to maintain relationships within the group at all costs. When
colleagues operate in a groupthink mode, they automatically apply the "preserve group harmony"
test to every decision they face." Janis pictured this kind of group as having a "warm clubby
atmosphere." This description captures the image a minority businessman had in mind when a
friend asked him what clubs he would like to join when racial integration became a reality. His
answer: "Only one. I'd like to be part of the 'good ole boys club.' That's where the 'insider' deals
are made." Most students of group process regard members' mutual attraction to each other as an
asset.
Marvin Shaw, a University of Florida psychologist and the author of a leading text in the field,
states this conviction in the form of a general hypothesis that has received widespread research
support: "High-cohesive groups are more effective than low-cohesive groups in achieving their
respective goals." But Janis consistently held that the "superglue" of solidarity that bonds people
together often causes their mental process to get stuck: The more amiability and esprit de corps
among members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical
thinking will be replaced by groupthink. ... The social constraint consists of the members' strong

29
wish to preserve the harmony of the group, which inclines them to avoid creating any discordant
arguments or schisms.
Janis was convinced that the concurrence-seeking tendency of close-knit groups can cause them
to make inferior decisions.
3.4.1 Symptoms of Groupthink
What are the signs that group loyalty has caused members to slip into a groupthink mentality?
Janis listed eight symptoms that show that concurrence seeking has led the group astray. The first
two stem from overconfidence in the group's prowess. The next pair reflects the tunnel vision
members use to view the problem. The final four are signs of strong conformity pressure within
the group. I'll illustrate many of the symptoms with quotes from the Report of the Presidential
Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.
l. Illusion of Invulnerability. Despite the Launchpad fire that killed three astronauts in 1967
and the close call of Apollo 13, the American space program had never experienced an in-flight
fatality. When engineers raised the possibility of catastrophic O-ring blow-by, NASA manager
George Hardy nonchalantly pointed out that this risk was "true of every other flight we have
had." Janis summarizes this attitude as "everything is going to work out all right because we are
a special group."
2. Belief in Inherent Morality of the Group. Under the sway of groupthink, members
automatically assume the rightness of their cause. At the hearing, engiheer Brian Russell noted
that NASA managers had shifted the moral rules under which they operated: "I had the distinct
feeling that we were in the position of having to prove that it was unsafe instead of the other way
around."
3. Collective Rationalization. Despite the written policy that the O-ring seal was a critical
failure point without backup, NASA manager George Hardy testified that "we were counting on
the secondary O-ring to be the sealing O-ring under the worst case conditions." Apparently this
was a shared misconception. NASA manager Lawrence Mulloy confirmed that "no one in the
meeting questioned the fact that the secondary seal was capable and in position to seal during the
early part of the ignition transient." This collective rationalization supported a mindset of "hear
no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."
4. Out-group Stereotypes. Although there is no direct evidence that NASA officials looked
down on Thiokol engineers, Mulloy was caustic about their recommendation to postpone the

30
launch until the temperature rose to 53 degrees. He reportedly asked whether they expected
NASA to wait until April to launch the shuttle.
5. Self-Censorship. We now know that Thiokol engineer George McDonald wanted to postpone
the flight. But instead of clearly stating "I recommend we don't launch below 53 degrees," he
offered an equivocal opinion. He suggested that "lower temperatures are in the direction of
badness for both O-rings” What did he think they should do? From his tempered words, it's hard
to tell.
6. Illusion of Unanimity. NASA managers perpetuated the fiction that everyone was fully in
accord on the launch recommendation. They admitted to the presidential commission that they
didn't report Thiokol’s on-again/ off again hesitancy with their superiors. As often happens in
such cases, the flight readiness review team interpreted silence as agreement.
7. Direct Pressure on Dissenters. Thiokol engineers felt pressure from two directions to reverse
their "no-go" recommendation. NASA managers had already postponed the launch three times
and were fearful the American public would regard the agency as inept. Undoubtedly that strain
triggered Hardy's retort that he was "appalled" at Thiokol's recommendation. Similarly, the
company's management was fearful of losing future NASA contracts. When they went off-line
for their caucus, Thiokol's senior vice president urged Roger Lund, vice president of engineering,
to "take off his engineering hat and put on his management hat."
8. Self-Appointed Mind guards. "Mind guards" protect a leader from assault by troublesome
ideas. NASA managers insulated Jesse Moore from the debate over the integrity of the rocket
booster seals. Even though Roger Boisjoly was Thiokol's expert on O-rings, he later bemoaned
that he "was not even asked to participate in giving input to the final decision charts."
3.5 Rhetorical Theory
Rhetorical theory is the body of thought about human symbol use. The term rhetoric, in its
popular usage, typically has negative connotations. Rhetoric is contrasted with action; it is empty
words, talk without substance, mere ornament. This contemporary understanding of rhetoric is at
odds with a long history of rhetorical theory, dating back in the West to ancient Greece and
Rome that provides a long-standing foundation on which the contemporary discipline of
communication is built. At the heart of theorizing about rhetoric, whether for the Greeks or
contemporary scholars, is what came to be called by Lloyd Bitzer in 1968 the rhetorical
situation.

31
Rhetoric occurs in response to an exigency or some kind of urgency, problem, or something not
as it should be. Another characteristic of the situation is the audience— those individuals capable
of affecting the exigency in some way. In addition, there are constraints in the situation—
positive and negative factors that hinder or enhance the possibility that the audience will be able
to affect the exigency.
Rhetoric comes into being, then, when a Rhetor observes or creates an exigency and offers
discourse designed to bring the interests of the audience to bear on it. In essence, then, rhetorical
theorists address some or all parts of the rhetorical situation—the rhetor and the degree of agency
available to him or her; the audience and the constraints available to them; the discourse,
message, or symbols used to address the exigency; how the exigency itself is constructed,
created, and addressed; and the larger contexts— historical, economic, cultural, and symbolic—
in which the situation is playing out. This entry will discuss definitions of rhetoric, origins of
rhetorical theory, and some of the major developments and elaborations on rhetorical theory
since its classical beginnings.
3.5.1 History and Development of Rhetorical Theory
Aristotle's definition of rhetoric provides a starting point for understanding how rhetoric has been
defined: the art of discovering all the available means of persuasion. For the ancient Greeks,
rhetoric was the use of logos or logical argument, ethos or speaker credibility, and pathos or
emotional argument to construct a persuasive argument. Rhetoric essentially was the art of
discourse, of systematically and artfully thinking through the five canons of rhetoric:
invention, organization, style, delivery, and memory.
Today, rhetoric is generally defined much more broadly as human symbol use, an idea explained
later in this essay. Rhetorical theory is said to have begun in Syracuse on the island of Sicily
when a dictator was overthrown, leaving former and current landowners to argue in court over
who rightfully owned the land—the original owners or those who had been given the land during
the tyrant's regime. Under the Greek legal system of the time, individuals had to present their
own cases in court—they could not hire lawyers to speak for them—creating the need for
individuals to become adept at the art of rhetoric.
Corax can be credited with the first formal rhetorical theory; he wrote a treatise called “The Art
of Rhetoric” to assist those involved in the land disputes. In his treatise, he highlighted the

32
importance of probability to rhetoric; a speaker should argue from general probabilities or create
a probable connection or basis for belief when actual facts cannot be established.
Corax's student, Tisias, brought the teaching of rhetoric to Athens and mainland Greece. The
belief that rhetoric could be taught—that eloquence was not something innate—gave rise to a
group of teachers of rhetoric called sophists, a term derived from the Greek word sophos,
meaning knowledge or wisdom. Today we look back on the sophists as philosophers and
teachers who not only helped establish the foundations of rhetoric as a 1 discipline, but also were
remarkably current in their understanding of the power of language.
In Athens, however, they were not seen in the same light in which we view them now. They
were distrusted for several reasons.
First, many were foreigners, and the Athenians were proud of their city state and judgmental of
others —even if they came from other Greek cities and territories. In addition, the sophists
charged for their services, at odds with Greek tradition, so some disliked the sophists because
they could not afford them. That the sophists claimed to teach wisdom or virtue, which had been
seen as an innate capacity that could not be taught, was an additional source of ill will. But in all
likelihood, none of these factors would have been important except for an accident of history—
the survival of Plato's dialogues.
Plato, Aristotle's teacher and a prominent Athenian philosopher, disliked the sophists because
they claimed there was no absolute truth. Plato believed in absolute and unchanging forms—
justice, virtue, the good—and used his own rhetorical skills to discredit the sophists and their
views on rhetoric in his dialogues. That Plato's writings against the sophists survived are
primarily responsible for the negative associations of rhetoric that persist to this day. Classical
rhetorical theories were dominated by the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. Plato was interested in
contrasting what he saw as the limitations of the sophists' rhetoric (the subject of his dialogue,
Gorgias, in which he compared rhetoric to cookery) with that of an ideal rhetoric, which he
offers in Pbaedrus. Aristotle was more interested in codifying rhetorical instruction and in
developing a pragmatic approach to the subject, in contrast to the moral perspective Plato
brought to the subject.
Aristotle's Rhetoric—actually a compilation of his students' notes of his lectures—offers the first
systematic and comprehensive treatise of rhetoric. The important Greece treatises on rhetoric
were picked up by the Romans, who were borrowers; as they took over the Mediterranean, they

33
adopted and adapted Greek rhetorical theories for their own needs. Cicero epitomizes Roman
rhetoric in that he both wrote about rhetoric and was himself a great orator. Three of his
rhetorical treatises were De Inventione (On Invention), De Oratore [On Oratory), and Orator
(Orator), and he developed the canon of style—and especially types of style—more completely
than any of his predecessors.
The Romans were particularly interested in the role of rhetoric in civic affairs, and for them, it
was a practical art that demanded natural ability, engagement in the life of the state, instruction,
and practice to fully realize the rhetorical ideal. When a series of dictators assumed control of
Rome, rhetoric became increasingly divorced from civic affairs (150-400 AD). Speaking out
about state matters was likely to result in punishment, so rhetoric became largely concerned with
matters of style and delivery rather than the substantive content of invention. During the Middle
Ages that followed (400-1400 AD), rhetoric continued its role as a practical art, with rhetorical
treatises addressing letter writing and preaching in particular.
Not until the Renaissance (1400-1600) was rhetoric revived as a subject for philosophical
inquiry. The Italian Humanists—linguists, grammarians, and literary scholars—demonstrated a
renewed interest in language not seen since the sophists. They believed that language has a
central place in constructing the human world— language is the lens through which the
meanings of the world come into being: Whether making sense of thunder in the night sky or of a
political election campaign, humans employ symbols to make sense of the phenomena around
them.
Rationalism also had its origins in the Renaissance, with René Descartes playing a central role
in the separation of reason from feeling and emotion. This focus on reason would dominate
rhetorical treatises through the 20th century, with rational argument becoming the preferred type
of appeal, aligned as it was with the new ideals of objectivity and empirical, scientific
approaches. The development of a new science called faculty psychology suggested there were
five faculties governing the human being—understanding, memory, imagination, passion, and
will—and reason was directed at the understanding. This led to interests among rhetorical
theorists who offered ways to also address the other faculties rhetorically—and George
Campbell's definition of rhetoric does 2 just that: enlightening understanding, pleasing
imagination, moving passions, and influencing will. What came to be called the modern period
in rhetoric, then, sought to understand the rhetorical impulse as it affected all aspects of the

34
human mind across a range of contexts as diverse as letter writing, elocution (the study of
delivery), and belles letters (beautiful letters or literature).
The contemporary period of rhetorical theory emerged from several starting points. In Europe
and the United States, propaganda efforts during World War II gave rise to various media
institutes that were designed to study not only propaganda but also all kinds of communication
processes. British and European philosophers— from I. A. Richards in England, Cha'im
Perelman in the Netherlands, Jürgen Habermas in Germany, and Michael Foucault in France—
began to take up rhetorical issues—though they did not necessarily refer to themselves as
rhetorical scholars. They were interested in language and how it functioned—at a microlevel to
create or dispel misunderstandings, to adapt arguments to particular audiences, to create the
possibility for reason in society, and to understand systems of discourse that implicitly structure
societies.
These interests also found their way to the United States where, in 1914, teachers in English who
had been teaching public speaking broke away to form new departments of speech and speech
communication, as well as a new discipline of speech with its own national association—the
National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking (now the National
Communication Association). Scholars in these new departments of speech asserted their
differences from English by focusing on the criterion of effectiveness to evaluate speeches in
contrast to English scholars, whose focus had been on aesthetic considerations. In the 1960s, this
singular interest broadened to include multiple methods, subject matters, and various
philosophical starting places. The status of rhetorical theory today reflects this diversity: No
longer confined to simply the study of speeches or discourse, it is generally viewed as the study
of any kind of symbols. In fact, many scholars of rhetoric use the terms rhetoric and
communication interchangeably; both terms can refer to the process and product of a human
symbolic interaction. In the remainder of this essay, four major developments that characterize
contemporary rhetorical theory will be showcased.
3.5.2 Contemporary Developments
First, rhetorical theory now addresses all contexts in which symbol use occurs. No longer
confined to the public domains of classical Greece for which rhetoric originally was designed the
judicial context or court of law, the legislative or political realm, and the ceremonial or display
functions— rhetorical theorist’s study every kind of context in which symbol use occurs.

35
Today this means studying everything from intrapersonal to interpersonal to public discourse to
social movements and mediated discourse. Rhetorical theories address what makes a public,
personal diary as rhetoric, and television, the Internet, and Web sites as rhetorical artifacts. This
means that rhetorical theory also includes the study of visual and nonverbal elements, such as the
study of art and architecture, buildings and all design elements of cities, and dress and
appearance, to sports, to name only a few.
There is virtually nothing that is part of the human experience that cannot be looked at from a
rhetorical perspective. Rhetorical theory has also seen a shift away from a strict focus on
persuasion as the central focus of rhetoric to an interest in all of the reasons for which humans
create rhetoric. For some rhetorical theorists, all human symbol use is inherently persuasive—no
matter what our intent, anything we say or write, whether intentional or not, affects those around
us. Other rhetorical theorists continue to focus on delineating how persuasion works in the
variety of new arenas for theorizing.
Yet others question the persuasive act itself—is it appropriate to ask another to change?—and
encourage research into other rhetorical modes, such as invitational rhetoric, that might be as or
even more effective than persuasion. In general, then, the focus on persuasion and its
possibilities has led to an ongoing interest among rhetorical theorists in rhetoric's relationship to
social change. Another contemporary trend in rhetorical theory is the recognition that there are
many different kinds of rhetoric beyond the Western rhetoric with origins in ancient Greece.
Eastern rhetoric, for example, looks entirely 3 different from Western rhetoric because of their
different cultural context. What is seen as persuasibility or conformity to messages in the West is
considered politeness, tact, or face-saving strategies in many cultures.
Communication apprehension or communication avoidance is considered a deficiency to be dealt
with in Western rhetoric; for many Eastern and Native American cultures, silence is a positive
trait. And deception, rather than being a moral issue in many cultures, comes down to a matter of
face. Although at first rhetorical theorists were reluctant to acknowledge different systems of and
approaches to symbol use as rhetorical, today it is understood that every human society makes
use of rhetoric—it cannot not do so. Rhetorical theorists, then, are investigating all of the
nuances of the rhetorical act in a wide range of cultural contexts. The recognition that Greek
rhetoric were designed for those who had access to the public domain in Greece— elite, well-
educated Athenian men—has led to rhetorical theorizing focused in particular on the nature of

36
the rhetor as well. Contemporary rhetorical theorists believe that the characteristics of the rhetor
cannot help but make for different rhetoric. When women were able to take to the public
platform, they introduced different rhetorical exigencies, arguments, and styles. African
American, Latino/a, and gay and lesbian rhetors have been studied to understand the ways the
standpoint of a rhetor affects the rhetorics produced. Whiteness studies have emerged to suggest
the ways that standpoint affects how messages are delivered and received.

3.6 Narrative paradigm

Narrative paradigm is a communication theory conceptualized by 20th-century communication
scholar Walter Fisher. The paradigm claims that all meaningful communication occurs via
storytelling or reporting of events. Humans participate as storytellers and observers of narratives.
This theory further claims that, stories are more persuasive than arguments. Essentially, the
narrative paradigm helps us to explain how humans are able to understand complex information
through narrative.
The Narrative Paradigm is a theory that suggests that human beings are natural storytellers and
that a good story is more convincing than a good argument. Walter Fisher developed this theory
as a solution making cohesive arguments. Fisher conceptualized the paradigm as a way to
combat issues in the public sphere. The problem was that human beings were unable to make
cohesive traditional arguments. At the time, the rational world paradigm was the theory used to
satisfy public controversies. He believed that stories have the power to include a beginning,
middle, and end of an argument and that the rational world paradigm fails to be effective in sense
making. Fisher uses the term paradigm rather than theory, meaning a paradigm is broader than a
theory. Fisher stated, "There is no genre, including technical communication that is not an
episode in the story of life." Fisher believed that humans are not rational and proposed that the
narrative is the basis of communication.
According to this viewpoint, people communicate by 9-telling/observing a compelling story
rather than by producing evidence or constructing a logical argument.
The narrative paradigm is purportedly all-encompassing, allowing all communication to be
looked at as a narrative even though it may not conform to the traditional literary requirements of
a narrative.

37
He states:
 Humans see the world as a set of stories. Each accepts stories that match his or her values
and beliefs, understood as common sense.
 Although people claim that their decisions are rational, incorporating history, culture, and
perceptions about the other people involved, all of these are subjective and incompletely
understood.
 Narrative rationality requires stories to be probable, coherent and to exhibit fidelity.
Storytelling is one of the first language skills that children develop. It is universal across
cultures and time.
3.6.1 Rational world paradigm
Walter Fisher conceptualized the Narrative Paradigm in direct contrast to the Rational World
Paradigm. "Fisher's interest in narrative developed out of his conclusion that the dominant model
for explaining human communication—the rational-world paradigm—was inadequate." Rational
World Paradigm suggests that an argument is most persuasive when it is logical. This theory is

based on the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.

Comparison
N Narrative paradigm Rational world paradigm
o
1 Humans are storytellers. 1. Humans are rational.

2 Decision making and communication are Decision making is based on arguments.

based on "good reasons".
3 Good reasons are determined by matters of
history, biography, culture and character.
4 Rationality is based in people's awareness of
internal consistency and resemblance to lived
experience.
Arguments adhere to specific criteria for soundness
and logic.
Rationality is based on the quality of evidence and
formal reasoning processes.

38
5 The world can be understood as a series of logical
We experience a world that is filled with relationships that are uncovered through reasoning.
stories, and we must choose among them.

According to Aristotle, some statements are superior to others by virtue of their relationship to
true knowledge. This view claims that:
 People are essentially thinking beings, basing their knowledge on evidence-based
reasoning.
 Rational argument reflects knowledge and understanding, and how the case is made.
These qualities determine whether the argument is accepted, so long as the form matches
the forum, which might be scientific, legal, philosophical, etc.
 The world is a set of logical puzzles that can be solved through reason.
3.6.2 Narrative rationality
Narrative rationality requires coherence and fidelity, which contribute to judgments about
reasons.
Coherence
Narrative coherence is the degree to which a story makes sense. Coherent stories are internally
consistent, with sufficient detail, strong characters, and free of significant surprises. The ability
to assess coherence is learned and improves with experience. Individuals assess a story's
adherence by comparing it with similar stories. The ultimate test of narrative sense is whether the
characters act reliably. If figures show continuity throughout their thoughts, motives, and actions,
acceptance increases. However, characters behaving uncharacteristically destroy acceptance.
Fidelity
Narrative fidelity is the degree to which a story fits into the observer's experience with other
accounts. How the experience of a story rings true with past stories they know to be true in their
lives. Stories with fidelity may influence their beliefs and values. Fisher set five criteria that
affect a story's narrative fidelity. The first of the requirements are the values which are embedded
in the story. The second of the elements is the connection between the story and the espoused
value. The third of the criteria is the possible outcomes that would accrue to people adhering to
the espoused values. The last two are firstly the consistency of the narrative's values with the

39
observer's values and lastly the extent to which the story’s values represent the highest values
possible in human experience.
3.6.3 Evaluation of reasoning systems
Fisher's narrative paradigm offers an alternative to Aristotelian analysis, which dominates the
field of rhetorical thinking. Narratives do not require training or expertise to evaluate.
Common sense assesses narrative coherence and fidelity. Busselle and Bilandzic distinguish
narrative rationality from realism, writing "It is remarkable that the power of Narrative is not
diminished by readers’ or viewers’ knowledge that the story is invented. On the contrary,
successful stories—those that engage us most—often are both fictional and unrealistic."
Alternatively, Foucault claimed that communications systems formed through the savoir and
pouvoir (knowledge and power) of the hierarchies that control access to the discourses.
Hence, criteria for assessing the reliability and completeness of evidence, and whether the
pattern of reasoning is sound are not absolutes but defined over time by those in positions of
authority. This is particularly significant when the process of thinking includes values and policy
in addition to empirical data. The narrative paradigm instead asserts that any individual can
judge a story's merits as a basis for belief and action.
Narration affects every aspect of each individual's life in verbal and nonverbal bids for someone
to believe or act in a certain way. Even when a message appears abstract—i.e., the language is
literal and not figurative—it is narration. This is because it is embedded in the storyteller's
ongoing story and it invites observers to assess its value for their own lives. Narrative rationality
and narrative emotion are complementary within a narrative theory. The former considers how
effectively the story conveys its meaning, as well as its implications. The latter considers the
emotional reactions of the story's observers. Narrative emotion is an emotion felt for the sake of
someone, or something, else.
3.6.4 Applications
Narrative theory is an assessment framework within various fields of communication. Those who
use narrative theory within their research refer to it as a general way of viewing communication.
The narrative paradigm is generally considered an interpretative theory of communication. It is
an especially useful theory for teaching qualitative research methods. Fisher’s theory has been
considered for domains ranging from organizational communication to family interaction, to

40
racism, and to advertising. McNamara proposed that the narrative paradigm can be used with
military storytelling to enhance the perception of the United States armed services.
Stutts and Barker, of Virginia Commonwealth University, proposed that the Narrative Paradigm
can be used to evaluate if a company's brand will be well received by consumers, by determining
if the created narrative has coherence and fidelity. Other researchers proposed using the narrative
paradigm to evaluate ethical standards in advertising. Roberts used the narrative paradigm as a
way to better understand the use of narrative in folklore. Hobart proposed using narrative theory
as a way to interpret urban legends and other kinds of hoaxes. Narrative paradigm is also
applicable when assessing multinational working relationships. Global interactions between
groups with different backgrounds have the tendency to hinder group progress and building
relationships.
Over the past two decades, scholars conceptualize diversity in the workplace using several
different theories. As companies continue to diversify, businesses look for communication
models to help manage the complex structure of human relationships. Narrative paradigm serves
as a communication technique that shows companies how the application of a good story could
provide benefits in the workforce. Storytelling is a cross-cultural solution that establishes
credibility and trust in relationships between workers.
3.6.5 Narrative and politics
Smith in 1984 conducted one example of a study that used narrative theory more directly. Smith
looked at the fidelity and coherence of narratives presented as Republican and Democratic Party
platforms in the United States and found that despite apparent differences, each party was able to
maintain integrity and fidelity by remaining consistent in both structure and overarching party
values. Narrative and health communication A study claimed that narrative features could be
strategically altered by health communicators to affect the reader's identification. It found that a
similarity between the reader and the narrative’s protagonist, but not the narrator’s point of view,
has a direct impact on the narrative's persuasiveness.
3.6.6 Narrative and branding
Narrative processing can create or enhance connections between a brand and an audience.
Companies and business use stories or brands that suggest a story to produce brand loyalty.
Businesses invest heavily in creating a good story through advertising and public relations. In
brand development, many marketers focus on defining a brand persona (typical user) before

41
constructing a narrative for that brand. Character traits such as honesty, curiosity, flexibility and
determination become embedded in the persona. Commitment to the associated behavioral
implications can help the brand maintain consistency with its narrative.

3.6.7 Criticism
Critics of the narrative paradigm mainly contend that it is not as universally applicable as Fisher
suggests. For example, Rowland asserted that it should be applied strictly to communication that
fits classic narrative patterns to avoid undermining its credibility. Other critiques include issues
of conservative bias. Kirkwood stated that Fisher's logic of good reasons focuses only on
prevailing issues but does not see all the ways that stories can promote social change. In some
ways, both Kirkwood and Fisher agree that this observation is more of an extension to the theory
than a critique.
Stroud considered "multivalent" narratives that include seemingly contradictory values or
positions that force a reader to reconstruct their meaning, thereby enabling positive judgments of
narrative fidelity and the adoption of new values. Some forms of communication are not
narrative in the way that Fisher maintains. Many science fiction and fantasy novels/movies
challenge rather than conform to common values. The narrative approach does not provide a
more democratic structure compared to the one imposed by the rational world paradigm. Nor
does it offer a complete alternative to that paradigm. The narrative paradigm gained attention
from poststructuralist education theorists for appealing to notions of truth.

42