Relational Dialectics

A Dialectic are contradictions that relationships face and continuously sway between the two. There are three types of Dialectics: Integration and Separation, Stability and Change, and Expression and Nonexpression.

Integration and Separation is the first Relationship Dialectic. In the movie, The Notebook, Noah and Allie experience internal and external characteristic of Integration and Separation. Internally they seek separation because they fought constantly, and after the summer was over, they wanted to be apart, but really, they wanted to stay together. Even through all the fighting and Allie's family's disagreement, they felt complete when they were together (correctedness). They had times when they wanted to be together and share secrets with each other, while their were times they wanted to spend times with their friends Finn and Sarah, or with Noah's family. Allie wanted to spend time with her family as well, but her family made them feel out of place, which is part of Stability and Change.

In the show, Gilmore Girls, Rory goes to college and is separated from her boyfriend Dean (during the second year of college). She tries to keep up in her studies while he tries to make as much time as possible to see her. Rory had certainty that their relationship would be fine (even after their affair while Dean was still married). Dean on the other hand, questioned their relationship (uncertainty) through the distance, his failed marriage, and his trust being shattered by Rory before. The uncertainty and certainty displays the couple's internal relationship under stability and change. The couple also faces external qualities like conventionality and uniqueness. Together in Starshollow, the small town in Connecticut where the majority of the show takes place, their relationship is usually accepted (conventionality). However, with the ex-wife and her family around, they are also faced with being unique and not as accepted (uniqueness). They also faced Rory's grandparents who did not approve of Dean and chose to introduce Rory to "acceptable" young men, and not follow in her mother's (Loralie) footsteps. Rory's relationship to dean and Loralie's life in general, including having Rory at a young age, is seen as unique externally.

Expression and Nonexpression is the final dialectic. Monica and Chandler (from the television series Friends) start their relationship as a secret. The external part of this dialectic includes concealment. Monica and Chandler spend the first part of the relationship keeping their relationship from the other friends, afraid of how their friends would react. As time went on, Joey discovered their secret, as Monica and Chandler disclosed to Joey the whole story, asking him to continue to keep a secret (the beginning of the Revelation). Not very long after, the rest of the group discovers their secret and they reveal they are in love, and the relationship is not just a fling. They internally learn about being opened and closed in the relationship. They tried to make each other jealous, leading into a fight. When Monica and Chandler worked out their fight, Chandler assumed they were going to break up, as he had in previous relationships. Monica shared that all couples lied and that they were officially in a relationship, leaving several feelings and thoughts that were closed, to opened.

I agree with this theory. I think most couples fall under at least one of the dialectics, but there are some relationships that are more familiar with all the dialectics and each internal and external detail.

References:
Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Social Information Processing Theory

Continuing through the Information Age, the internet is becoming more dependable, even when finding relationships. Although the relationship can work, the time it takes from the relationship to develop is said to be four times longer than if the relationship was in person. The relationship also lacks nonverbal cues, with emoticons being one of the few exceptions. Walther also states that relationships online are even more intimate. Self-fulfilling prophecy (if you expect someone to act or respond a certain way) may also come into play during online relationships.

I have had an online relationship. It was really hard to have conversations on AOL instant messenger without him knowing my personality with my sarcasm and teasing. I was also able to disclose more information than I would in person to a complete stranger, probably because I did not believe anything would happen. He would say very nice things and make me smile, without ever knowing, and so I expected him to be a gentleman. When I finally met him, that's how I expected him to be, a gentleman, and he was.

I agree with this theory. I also think meeting people online is a little scary, but it can also be a great feeling.

References:
Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

When first meeting someone new, there is an amount of uncertainty. Berger and Calbrese came up with several axioms to explain the situation and how the level of uncertainty will either increase or decrease.
When I first met my roommate freshman year of college, the more we talked about our lives and exchanging information, my uncertainty level went down (Axiom 1). I agree and disagree with Axiom 1. For the most part, you become more comfortable after talking to someone, but if this stranger is disclosing strange or scary information, the uncertainty level may increase instead of decrease.
Along with verbal communication, nonverbal communication can be just as helpful. When my roommate started displaying pictures and revealing things about herself, without speaking, I became more comfortable (Axiom 2). Axiom 2 states that the more nonverbal communication, the uncertainty level decreases. I agree with this Axiom as well, but I think it also depends on the situation. If someone you just met is giving you a strange look, you may feel less comfortable.
When forced to do a group assignment with a bunch of strangers, I decided to Facebook them to find out a little more about them. One guy posted that he was looking for random play and so forth, when he had a girlfriend. He also had a random, inappropriate picture displayed. I became uncomfortable around him in our group (Axiom 3). When try to find more information on an individual, your uncertainty level is high. I agree, but after seeking info, I think the uncertainty level can also decrease.
Axiom 4 claims that if you are unsure about a stranger, the level of information provided is low.
Axiom 5 claims that the more you feel uncertain about someone, the more you'll repeat. So if someone says "I'm an education major" you may reply with "I'm a communications major" and share my side for each answer they disclose.
When I see someone around campus with a "Medina" shirt on, I get excited because that's where I'm from too. I can easily strike up a conversation with someone in a Medina shirt. If I talk to any stranger and realize we have similarities, I feel more comfortable in the situation. I couldn't find any problems with Axiom 6, believing entirely that if you have similarities, you feel more comfortable in a situation.
Axiom 7 claims that if you uncertain about a new person, you like the person less.
During a class, a girl stated she was in a co-ed fraternity, and I realized that was same fraternity my two roommates are involved in, so I was able to talk to her and see if she knew my roommates. Axiom 8 is the comfort when you realize you have people in common or possibly the same career.
I agree with mostly all the Axioms, with a few acceptions to each.



References:
Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Social Penetration Theory

When I first met my roommate freshman year of college, she could tell right away that I was short and had brown hair. As time went on that day, I was able to share basic information about my family members, my boyfriend, and my hopeful major. After living together for about a month, my roommate knew more than just the basic information about my family, love life, school, and other personal facts. Two years lady, I still have the same roommate and we have touched on every subject, including politics and religion, even though the information is pretty basic. Other topics, however, she knows almost anything there is to know and the extent of stories can grow each day as an event occurs. I feel I can trust her and that I don't have to worry about how much I self-disclose to her.

Layers of an onion compared to the personality is how Altman and Taylor describe the "Social Penetration Theory." A personality is broken into different categories and each has a depth that may be shared as information is shared with another individual. This is referred to as "Breadth and Depth," (Griffin, 2006). There are also positive and negative effects from self-disclosing information to another.

When I first met my roommate, she only learned basic facts from a variety of categories, but in the last 2 years, she has heard several stories that relate with each topic. Self-disclosing to her has a positive effect. I know I can trust her because no one else has ever repeated my information I have shared with only her, and if there is a problem that occurs, I can relate back to another situation that I have shared with her before.

References:
Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Expectancy Violation Theory

The day after Christmas is a popular day for Americans to shop, especially at the mall. Working at Deb on December 26, I went to speak to a manager in the front half of the store when she started to speak to me about elbow room. The mass of people passing through the rows of clothes and crowding around the area my manager was working, made her feel uncomfortable and claustrophobic. She expected that any customer than came that close to her, had a question. This lead to a negative attribute with an uneasy feeling.

Burgoon's "Expectancy Violation Theory" breaks down to how someone expects how another should act in the situation, the context of the conversation, as well as the relationship the individuals share. If an incident breaks the boundaries of expectations, there will either be a positive or negative attribution or rewards or punishments.

My manager expected customers to act one way and there was a different reality leading to a negative attribution following the "Expectancy Violation Theory"

References:
Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.