The Interactional View

1
The Interactional View

• Paul Watzlawick
• Chapter 13

2
The Interactional View

• Group theory (families)
• Family is a system
• Can only be understood as a whole (Gestalt)
• Focus on system problems rather than personal
  problems (fault is with all within the system)
• Systems operate via rules
• Communication patterns
• We play communication games (sequence of
  behaviors governed by rules)
• E.g. nag withdrawal nag withdrawal,
  child behavior parent-behavior child
  behavior parent behavior
• Understand the rules help the relationships

3
The Interactional View

• Family homeostasis
• Maintain status quo
• Axioms
• We cannot not communicate
• Communication content (verbal) relationship
  (nonverbal)
• Relationship communication gives context to
  content
• Relationship messages metacommunication (most
  important)

4
The Interactional View

• Punctuation
• Blame game creates endless cycle
• See page 173
• Dont focus on the cause, focus on breaking out
  of the cycle
• Symmetrical vs. complementary communication
• Symmetrical equal power, status control
• Complementary unequal power, status, control
• Rogers and Faraces coding
• One-up communication
• One-down communication
• Transitory attempt to neutralize control

5
The Interactional View

• Family systems resist change
• Enabler, hero, deny-er, etc.
• Double bind
• Mutually exclusive expectations
• You/I should be more loving
• You/I should be spontaneous
• You/I should be responsible
• You/I should be an independent thinker
• You/I should do more for our relationship
• You/I should be autonomous

6
The Practical

• Change the game be changing the rules
• We must see the self-defeating behaviors (ours
  too!)
• Reframe how we perceive things (p. 176)
• We should analyze the behaviors (unrealistic,
  immature, unfair, understandable, etc.)
• We cant change the facts, but we can change how
  we perceive them
• We need to see that our current solutions are
  often a fundamental part of the problem

7
Social Judgment Theory

• Muzafer Sherif
• Chapter 14

8
Social Judgment Theory

• Persuasion theory
• We compare all new messages to our existing point
  of view
• We can only stretch a limited amount
• We have three types of attitude zones (see page
  184)
• Latitude of acceptance
• Latitude of rejection
• Latitude of non-commitment
• Most typical is two to four zones per scale, but
  combinations with as many as five or more are
  possible
• Still made up of the three types of zones

9
Social Judgment Theory

• How far we can stretch depends on
  ego-involvement
• Is the issue important, relevant? Is it
  something we believe helps define us?
• If so, our rejection zone is large
• More black and white about the issue
• Extreme positions indicate high ego-involvement
• Theory offers no specific advice about
  non-commitment zone

10
Social Judgment Theory

• High involvement (high rejection zone)
• Possible low CC
• Attitude affects how we judge new messages
• Contrast if a high-ego topic message is barely
  outside the acceptance zone, we push it further
  out
• So we dont have to deal with it
• Assimilation if a high-ego message is barely
  inside the acceptance zone, we pull it in (accept
  it)
• This process is outside of consciousness
• Group membership affects involvement and ego

11
Social Judgment Theory

• High contrast leads to polarization
• High assimilation leads to acceptance of ideas
  that may be somewhat outside of our current
  attitude
• Persuasion works best here
• Risk
• The closer to the edge (within), the more you can
  move the listener or reader
• If you stray outside, even a little, you move
  them further away

12
Social Judgment Theory

• Advice
• Stay just inside the listeners zone of
  acceptance use multiple messages over time
• See experiment on page 188-189
• The more credible the speaker (listeners
  perspective), the wider the zone of acceptance
• Ambiguity can help
• Understand the others point of view, dont just
  present your own
• Audience analysis is the most important
  preparation task in persuasion

13
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Petty and Cacioppos

• A Persuasion Theory
• Chapter 15

14
Elaboration

• An unconscious process consisting of expansion
  and embellishment of detail
• www.indianpsychiatry.com/Glossary.htm
• Elaboration requires mental effort
• Limited resource cognitive load
• We naturally reserve this resource for stimuli we
  find relevant, important, potentially valuable,
  dangerous, etc.

15
Elaboration Likelihood Model

• Two paths to persuasion
• Peripheral route credibility, liking, humor,
  attractiveness, emotion, age, trigger words, etc.
• Cues
• Little mental effort, little consideration of new
  ideas
• Central route logic, reasoning, well-argued
  evidence
• Greater mental effort, critical analysis of new
  ideas
• These are more end points of a continuum than
  opposite and fixed approaches

16
Elaboration Likelihood Model

• Which is operative is a matter of motivation and
  ability
• Motivation we have a limited capacity with
  regard to processing
• Relevance, ego, importance, potential
  rewards/costs
• Increases mental processing (elaboration)
• If motivated central route. If not peripheral
  route
• Ability can we elaborate?
• Requires both intelligence and concentration
• Is the message clear? Redundancy? Distractions?

17
Advice Elaboration Likelihood Model

• If the listener is likely to be motivated, focus
  more on the argument, reasoning, evidence
  (central route)
• Very resistant to future change
• Poorly executed attempt can backfire push them
  further
• Biased thinking distorts how people process the
  information, even when highly ego-involved
• If the listener is not likely to be motivated,
  focus more on peripheral cues.
• Weak and short-lived persuasive effect
• Best approach, use both use peripheral to
  attract them to the issue (see it as relevant),
  then use the central route

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Festinger
• Chapter 16

22
Aesop Story

• I wouldnt eat them

23
Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Aversive drive regarding cognitive discord
• We seek cognitive equilibrium
• We change our behavior or belief to avoid
  dissonance find consistency in our perceptual
  paradigm
• We adjust our behavior or our beliefs to attain
  cognitive equilibrium (cigarette smoking example)
• Degree of dissonance (cognitive discomfort)
  depends on
• How important the issue is to us
• The degree of difference between what we believe
  and what we do

24
How do we reduce dissonance? Three hypotheses

• Selective exposure hypothesis
• We avoid listening/reading or exposing ourselves
  to opinions, messages, or behaviors that conflict
  with our beliefs
• New communication technologies increase this
  ability
• We are driven to stick with our own kind
• Only works when we anticipate the dissonance

25
How do we reduce dissonance? Three hypotheses

• Postdecision dissonance hypothesis
• We seek cognitive assurance after close call
  decisions
• Dissonance is increased by
• Importance of decision
• Length of the delay before decision between
  reasonably equal choices
• Degree of difficulty in a reversal after the
  decision
• These drive us to seek reassuring information
  (cognitive assurance)

26
How do we reduce dissonance? Three hypotheses

• Minimal justification hypothesis (persuasion)
• Change attitude to change behavior? No
• Change behavior to change attitude? Yes
• Counterintuitive opposite of other theories
• Most radical of the three hypotheses
• Festingers 1/20 experiment
• Students that lied for 20 were bored (no
  dissonance)
• Those that lied for 1 said it was more enjoyable
  (high dissonance)
• Dollar was minimal justification to induce
  compliance. Students had to create another
  justification

27
Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Minimal justification hypothesis why?
• Aronson determined that psychological
  inconsistency (conflict between self-concept and
  belief/behavior) is important, not logical
  inconsistency (Festingers assertion)
• Cooper believes that it is perception of hurting
  others that creates dissonance
• Steele believes that if we have high self esteem,
  well use denial, forgetfulness and
  trivialization to reduce dissonance

28
Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Theory in practice
• You want to convince a new acquaintance to join
  your political action group
• Dont use promise of great rewards or dire
  consequences youll only achieve behavioral
  compliance, not cognitive or affectual agreement
• Work toward friendship (bypass selective
  exposure, reduce postdecision dissonance)
• Use minimal justification so that actions are
  freely chosen (she will have to create a
  justification)
• Get her to do her own cost/benefit analysis

29
Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• Critique
• Since there is no reliable way to measure
  dissonance, how do we know its there?
• So, there is no way to disprove the theory