COMMUNICATION

THEORIES
Melchor S. Baniaga Jr.
Ph.D. EM Student
 DRAMATISM THEORY
• developed by Kenneth Burke
• a way to analyze human relationships through interpretive studies.
It is a theory that compares life to a drama. This provides a direct
route from human motivation to human relationships. It is a
strategy that intends to help others view life, not live it, and be
able to compare each social unit or activity as one of the five
elements of a drama.
 DRAMATISM THEORY
• Burke discusses two important ideas – that life is drama, and the
ultimate motive of rhetoric is the purging of guilt.
• How do we explain human action? Motivations behind human
activities? The Dramatism Theory uses a five-pointed star to help
separate the key elements that exist within this idea.
 What Are the 5 Points of Dramatism Theory?

• Burke uses a parallel extension of the six questions that should be

asked in an interview: who, what, where, when, why and how. This
brought him to the 5 elements that should be in every drama: an
act, a scene, an agent, an agency, and the purpose.
 This corresponds with the decisions that are
made in life that correspond to motivation and
relationships.
• The Act: This describes what was done. It is the motivation behind the decisions
that are being made.
• The Scene: This describes where the event occurs. It has an influence on the
decision that was made.
• The Agent: This is a description of the decision-maker.
• The Agency: This is a detailed description of the methodology that was used to
implement the decision that was made. Various methods can be incorporated into
this point, including apologetics, messaging, or storytelling.
• The Purpose: Why did the decision need to be made in the first place?
• There is a hierarchy associated with these
points and concepts through the power that is
available within each relationship. The
dramatic process must have structure for it to
reflect the human condition. The structure of
each relationship helps to determine the social
awareness of the individual and how they will
react in any given situation.
REACTION vs RESPONSE – THE COCKROACH THEORY
 At a restaurant, a cockroach suddenly flew
from somewhere and sat on a lady. She started
screaming out of fear. With a panic stricken face
and trembling voice, she started jumping, with
both her hands desperately trying to get rid of the
cockroach. Her reaction was contagious, as
everyone in her group also got panicky. The lady
finally managed to push the cockroach away but…
it landed on another lady in the group.
 Now, it was the turn of the other lady in the
group to continue the drama. The waiter rushed
forward to their rescue. In the relay of throwing,
the cockroach next fell upon the waiter. The waiter
stood firm, composed himself and observed the
behaviour of the cockroach on his shirt. When he
was confident enough, he grabbed it with his
fingers and threw it out of the restaurant.
 A few thoughts we can pick up while analyzing
this situation could be: was the cockroach
responsible for their histrionic behavior? If so, then
why was the waiter not disturbed? He handled it
near to perfection, without any chaos.
 It is not the cockroach, but the inability of
those people to handle the disturbance caused by
the cockroach, that disturbed the ladies. Upon
introspection we’ll realize that it is not the shouting
of your father or my boss or wife or husband that
disturbs you, but your inability to handle the
disturbances caused by their shouting that disturbs
you.
 Some of the lessons that we can learn by
analyzing this incident could be: We should not
react in life. We should always respond. The
women reacted, whereas the waiter responded.
Reactions are always instinctive, often out of
control, whereas responses are always well thought
of. Thoughtless reactions can get us into unwanted
trouble; whereas thought out practical and sensible
responses can help us out of trouble.
 A person is happy not because
everything is right in life.
He/she is happy because the
attitude towards everything in life is
right.
 The Three Aspects of Communication in
Dramatism Theory
• The first is superiority. This communication occurs when one individual feels that they have a moral or
ethical control over a specific situation. They act in confidence because they “know” they are right.
What other people think or feel doesn’t matter to them.
• The second is inferiority. This communication occurs when there is a concession to another that they
are, in fact, superior in some way. It is a social relationship that communicates, “Go ahead and lead. I’ll
follow.”
• The third is equality. It may occur when there are differences or similarities in opinion. It can occur
between different socioeconomic classes. It occurs when both may feel superior or both may feel
inferior. It is a concept that we often hear expressed as, “I have a lot of respect for this person.”
 EXPECTANCY VIOLATION
• is a communication theory which tries to explain the unexpected behaviors
of human beings while interacting. The theory is based on the uncertainty
reduction theory where the vagueness on the behaviors of the others is
reduced through interaction. The theory was developed from the Nonverbal
expectancy violation model by Judee.K.Burgoon which described the
personal space possessed by a person and how people responded to its
violation. People expect or predict a particular behavior while interacting and
the violation to these expectations can be perceived positively or negatively
which is characterized by the relationship between the people.
 Expectancy Violation
• emphasizes on an individual perception of the interaction in a
particular situation. People while communicating will create an
expectation of how the other will react. Violation to this
expectation can cause to a perception that will be positive or
negative. People behave differently according to the cultural values
they grow up in and this influences the reaction of the people
considerably.
 Expectancy Violation
• dependent on the personal space. The personal space is the
boundary we keep and freedom is given to the people whom we
are close with. Particular personal space is expected from the
people whom they interact with according to the relationship they
have with them. The theory explains that people tends to protect
the personal space when they experience a violation in the
expected behavior.
 There are two types of expectancies
• Predictive – predictive expectancy is defining the communication
and interaction happening within a particular environment or a
context
• Prescriptive– people displaying behaviors appropriate to the
existing environment
 Face Negotiation Theory
• is based on the underlying assumption that, regardless of their
culture, people are all concerned with saving face. The theory
attempts to explain the reasons behind the different ways people
from different cultures handle conflict. According to Face
Negotiation Theory, this occurs because people of different
cultures have different priorities when it comes to saving face, and
they have different ideas of what constitutes saving face.
 Face Negotiation Theory
• The theory places special emphasis upon the different viewpoints of
members of collectivist and individualistic cultures. Because collectivist
cultures emphasize the collective, members seek to avoid anything that might
damage the group. As a result, they often avoid conflict, and they often allow
others to save face when a conflict is unavoidable. Additionally, saving the
group’s face is viewed as primary, with individual face-saving taking a
backseat. Individualistic cultures, on the other hand, emphasize the
individual, and members, who feel the need to make others lose face in order
to save their own, often believe that avoiding conflict leads to losing face. In
these cultures, the face of the group may be a secondary consideration, or
may not be a consideration at all.
 Groupthink
• is an occurrence where by a group comes to a unanimous decision
about a possible action despite the existence of fact that points to
another correct course of action. This term was first given by
Irving Janis who was a social psychologist. His main aim was to
understand how a group of individuals came up with excellent
decisions one time and totally messed up ones at other times.
 Groupthink
• According to Irving, in a group sometimes there comes a
situation when all the members of the groupthink it is more
important to come to a unanimous decision than to carefully go
through all their options to get at the most beneficial course of
action.
 Examples
• Challenger space shuttle disaster and the Bay of Pigs invasion. It
has been reported that the engineers of the space shuttle knew
about some faulty parts months before take-off, but in order to
avoid negative press, they went ahead with the launch anyway. In
the second case, President Kennedy made a decision and the
people around him supported it despite having their own doubts.
 Groupthink
• In groupthink, the members of the group place emphasis on everyone
agreeing and feel threatened if all do not agree on a course of action. This
results on better options being overlooked, people overcoming their basic
thoughts of providing alternatives, critiques or a new opinion. This results in
poor decision making, unmet goals and problem solving.
 Groupthink
• Groupthink occurs normally when there a strong sense of “we” in the
group. In such a case people want to be on good terms with their group no
matter what the cost. They try to maintain the harmony of the group and
sacrifice individual critical thinking for groupthink.
 Eight symptoms of groupthink
1. Illusions of invulnerability: Here the groups display excessive optimism and
take big risks. The members of the group feel they are perfect and that
anything they do will turn out to be successful.
2. Collective Rationalization: Here members of the group rationalize thoughts
or suggestions that challenge what the majority is thinking. They try giving
reasons as to why the others don’t agree and thereby go ahead with their
original decisions.
 Eight symptoms of groupthink
3. Belief in Inherent morality of the group: There is a belief that whatever the group
does it will be right as they all know the difference between right and wrong. This
cause them to overlook the consequences of what they decide.
4. Out – Group Stereotypes: The group believes that those who disagree are
opposed to the group on purpose. They stereotype them as being incapable of
taking their right decisions and as being weak or evil.
5. Direct Pressure on Dissenters: The majority directly threaten the person who
questions the decisions by telling them that they can always leave the group if they
don’t want to agree with the majority. Pressure is applied to get them to agree.
 Eight symptoms of groupthink
6. Self – Censorship: People engage in self – censorship where they believe
that if they are the only odd one out then they must be the one who is
wrong.
7. Illusions of unanimity: Silence from some is considered accepting of the
majority’s decision.
8. Self – Appointed Mind Guards: They are members of the group who take
it upon themselves to discourage alternative ideas from being expressed in
the group.
 Solution
• To avoid Groupthink, it is important to have a process in place for checking
the fundamental assumptions behind important decisions, for validating the
decision-making process, and for evaluating the risks involved. It is
important to explore objectives and alternatives, encourage challenging of
ideas, have back –up plans, etc. If needed gather data and ideas from outside
sources and evaluate them objectively.