routes...=)

>i read this article on the internet =) <

source: http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/fall_01/adv382j/cmoore/elaboration_likelihood_model.htm

Central route

Persuasive communication

For a message to be effective it must be persuasive. It attempts to steer one’s thinking in a direction that will likely benefit the communicator and/or the receiver. Determining whether the message is indeed persuasive is what this model is all about. If it is a neutral message, it has failed to be persuasive and the receiver can take it or leave it for what it is worth (a waste of the receiver’s time). So, assuming that the message is in some way, at least a little bit persuasive, the receiver becomes involved in the next step. For the purposes of this paper, a persuasive message should be considered to be an advertisement.


Motivation to process

In order for the receiver to have motivation to process the message it must have some relevance to her. It should pertain to something that she already knows about. At least some familiarity with the subject matter of a message will encourage the receiver to process it. People have a lot to do in a day. They don’t have a chance or the desire to think about every little thing that pops up. This is known as low involvement. When a person has little or no tie to a product or message, they have little involvement with it and thus little or no desire to hear much about it.



On the other hand is high involvement. An expert in woodcarving will want to know more about techniques and processes that he can use to refine his craft. A person suffering from asthma will want to know about new breakthroughs in the treatments that will help her breath a little easier. In shopping for a car, a consumer will want to find out about all the features of several different models in order to make an informed and confident decision before spending such a sum of money. When a person has a high degree of personal experience with information conveyed in the persuasive communication, he or she is more likely to pay attention and get deeper into the message.


Ability to process

Now the receiver has been motivated to process but does he have the ability to do so? There may be a multitude of distractions: the kids screaming for dinner, the neighbor is at the door for another cup of sugar, the receiver is thirsty and wants a drink. Other advertisements and outlets of information are also distractors. Competition among persuasive messages is fierce and the receiver’s time is precious. He may simply not have the opportunity to process the message at that particular time.



The information being conveyed may be to complex to comprehend. An asthma sufferer will surely want to know about the new product but if the ad contains a lot of technical and medical jargon, the patient is likely to be turned off because she simply cannot understand the diction. She will not elaborate on the message.



If the receiver can understand the message and there are no distractions, he or she can then go to the next stage in the model.


Nature of arguments in the message

What is the message trying to say? If it is a strong message -- that is, if it is a well-constructed and convincing message, the receiver is more likely to receive it favorably. Persuasion may occur even if the message content is in contrast to the receiver’s initial attitude. If it is in keeping with the receiver’s previous opinions, there is likely to be lasting, positive persuasion. The receiver will have been pulled even more in the direction that he or she was already leaning, thus reinforcing that particular attitude for the future. At this point it is likely that behavior can be predicted as a result of persuasion (Fishbein 1975), i.e. the consumer will purchase the asthma medication because she was persuaded based on the strength and relevance of the message. Successful persuasion has occurred!



If the receiver has become involved with the message this far into the central path but the message does not contain a cogent argument or if it contains false information there is likely to be a boomerang effect. This means that the receiver will reject the message and form negative thoughts and feelings about the message. This is especially true when the receiver is an expert or has a lot of previous knowledge about the subject of the message. She may disagree with the ideas expressed in a well-formed argument and simply reject the message. Or she may see the inadequacies of the message and dismiss it as unreliable information, failing to be persuaded.




Peripheral route

If a message fails to be channeled through the central route, it may find a path to the receiver via the peripheral route. This happens when the receiver is not motivated to think about the message, if he is unable to process it, or if the argument is weak. A message using the peripheral route attempts to persuade by focusing on issues or themes that are not directly related to the subject matter of the message. That is, the message will attempt to grab attention by making the receiver think about something that she is already familiar with and has positive thoughts about, such as sex, money, or a celebrity. An example is the use of Michael Jordan in selling batteries. There is no distinguishable tie between Jordan’s reputation as a basketball player and a battery but a consumer may be persuaded to buy the battery simply because he likes Michael Jordan. In this example Michael Jordan is a peripheral cue.



Robert Cialdini has identified six types of peripheral cues: reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity.



1. Reciprocation is the idea that the receiver is somehow obligated to agree with the message because of some past experience or information.



2. Consistency means relying on thoughts held in the past. (“I felt like this before and I feel like this now”)



3. Social proof is akin to peer pressure. The actions and words of others are likely to influence a receiver of a new message.



4. Liking simply means that the speaker is likeable. They may be physically attractive, charismatic, or charming.



5. Authority is the sense that the speaker has some power over the receiver, be it an expertise in the subject matter or possibly an overbearing attitude.



6. Scarcity is the idea that the message will only be around for a short time and that the receiver should snatch it up before it disappears.



Each of these peripheral cues has little or nothing to do with the actual content of the message. (http://www.as.udayton.edu/com/FACULTY/Kenny/chap17.htm)



So if the message fails to take the central route at any step in the process (i.e. if the receiver is not motivated, does not have the ability, or if the argument is weak) then the next question is whether there is a peripheral cue present in the message. If there is no cue present, the original attitude will be retained. The attempt at persuasion will fail. If there is a cue, it may produce a positive, but temporary attitude change.



Although the attitude change may be temporary, it could be enough to encourage action. The consumer would then have some more experience with the object of the message. Then, later, when the message is repeated, it may have a better chance of surviving through the central route and change attitudes permanently.



For example: a student needs a new backpack. A Jansport ad happens to come on TV with kids looking cool and having fun with their new packs. The ad touts a few benefits but for the most part the ad is full of appealing visuals. The student is then peripherally motivated to buy a Jansport backpack. The student discovers that the pack is quite a nice and useful one and comes to respect the brand in general. The next time the ad comes on TV the student will have had some practical experience with the brand and will be more motivated to listen to the message and reinforce the positive opinions of Jansport backpacks. Even the very repetition of the message will serve to reinforce the opinions of the student. (Eagly 1993)

***************************************************************************************

we were tasked to choose two TV advertisements — one that we think will be centrally processed, and the other we think will be peripherally processed.




PERIPHERAL ROUTE

Advertisement:

myra-E multivitamins

Motivation to process:

"be blooming."
she says those words perfectly.
I really admire Dawn Zulueta. that is why i always stop every time her myra-e commercial apperas on tv. she is beautiful. she doesn't look like her age.

ability to process:

sometimes i already want to believe that myra-e is effective. but the thought that dawn's beauty was in born and not really because of myra-e makes me realize that it may not be useful for me.

CENTRAL ROUTE

Advertisement:

Nescafe

Motivation to process:

drinking coffee is a part of my college life. i can't stay awake all night and study if not because of this.

ability to process

i was able to process the message. aside from it is calm and light, it shows the bonding within friends who drink the coffee. it keeps them awake and enjoy their moment with each other. it may be funny but what i have in mind now (that also made me captured by that advertisement) is that, i can stay awake all night and enjoy my every moment with my lessons, reviewers, books and notebooks. hahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

"one moment. one nescafe!!!"


=)

don't ya!

don't mess with me...


i'll show you what i've truly got.


hahaha!!!

u'v got mail Jim...

"Shelley and Jim have been dating very seriously for about six months. From the beginning of the relationship, Jim has known that Shelley has kept a private diary that he has never shown anyone. At first, he wasn’t too interested in this activity, but as they have drawn closer, he has become intrigued by her personal writings. Yet he never asks if she would share her prose with him, she responds that she needs secret place to work out her thoughts and emotions. In conversation, she never holds back from him, freely self-disclosing about herself and their relationship, but the diary remains all her own, and Jim is perplexed, even disturbed by this. The more interest he shows in her private writings, the more adamant about her privacy she becomes. What should they do?"


This letter is for Jim. i don't know how to send it to him, i just hope he could read this post of mine.

Dear Jim,

Hi!

maybe you're a little curious why i wrote you this letter. I am just concerned with your situation. (actually,the amin reason is that, this is my assignment..lol!=)

there are no better ways to explain what Shelley is going through right now than telling you about the RELATIONAL DIALECTIC OF EXPRESSION/PRIVACY.

it doesn't mean that if Shelley wouldn't let you read her diary, she doesn't trust you anymore. According to the relational dialectic of expression/privacy,there are really contradicting tensions within individuals. This is the desire to be open and expressive, and the need to be closed and private. she feels the struggle between self-disclosing and keeping personal information.

to tell you honestly, i am experiencing the same thing with a friend. there are times that i want to talk about my feelings, my fears, problems, likes, dislikes and so on. that is so my friend would understand me. yet there are things that must remain to be completely private. they are parts of my self that should be preserved and not shared to anyone.

you could not blame shelley. all of us could feel the same way. you should understand her in the first place.

if you would mind, please read my older posts about it. they would be of great help.

do not ever think that i just go with the side of Shelley because we are both girls.
please deal with my simple advice smartly.

until here. God bless you!

p.s.

I am conducting a research about developing personal relationships through the dialectic of expression/privacy. could you be one of my respondents? thanks in advance.

truly yours,


jessa



"I enjoyed seeing my old high school friends over the winter break, but my parents really got on my nerves. They nagged me to come in early in the evenings, and they saw to it that sleeping-in was impossible. I had to eat on their schedule. My mother’s having a real problem letting go of mothering me — she still treats me like I’m ten. When I protest she says, “You have to understand that you’ll always be my precious little child.” For some reason, that bothers me, and I stomp around and say something like “I’m an adult, so treat me like one!” or “As my mother, you ought to understand that I need my autonomy!” Then she gets huffy and claims that my manner and tone of voice are unpleasant. Or she’ll say, “I don’t like your body language.” I wish she’d focus on what I’m saying instead of getting off on tangents. One time she said to me, “You just hurt my feelings,” but I hadn’t even said anything! My father’s obsessed with my smoking. He claims that the secondhand smoke bothers him, but it really bothers me that he never complains when his buddies smoke in his presence. He’s also been riding me because I changed my major from premed to communication. He says, “I wish you’d go back to being premed-not for me, but for your own future.”

From my first day at home, I tried to be assertive about my needs and values and have done my best not to back down, but they just don’t seem to appreciate my efforts to be my own person. There’s not much giving in around the house. I wish they would let go. And my little sister is acting strange. My parents claim that she was an angel all fall, but when I arrived home I quickly saw that this couldn’t have been the case. The whole time I was there, she was getting into trouble right and left, continually requiring my parents to drop whatever they were doing — especially when it was something with me — to deal with her crises. Just when Dad and I were about to leave to attend a concert I’d been looking forward to for days, she announces that she thinks she’s pregnant. Of course that brings down the house, and the concert is forgotten. And of course she isn’t pregnant.

Later, when I called her on it, she told me that I was the one who was out of line. She complains about my yelling, and the way I talk to her. Can you believe that? I told her, “You ought to take my advice because I’m older than you!” She shoots back, “You ought to leave me alone because you don’t really live here anymore!”

Honestly, I love my family, but they’re nuts, and they drive me crazy. I’m sure glad to be back at school.

Now if I could just get my roommate to listen to reason…"



Dear whoever you are,

greetings!

you also drive me crazy. i think you are the who's going nuts.

haha!!!

just kidding.

by the way, i am jessa. maybe you are thinking that i have no right to mind your own business. oh well, i really do not have it (but i have to have!haha!it is my assignment!)

i just want to ask you this question, do you know the Watzlawick's Interactional View?

that would really help you develop your relationship with your family.
i will tell you a little about it. if you just know the levels of meaning, you would know the difference between the content meaning or the obvious meaning, which is the content of what is said, and the relationship meaning which carries information about your relationship with your family.

you would also understand your mother and father saying all those things to you. they are your parents and nothing in the world could change that. they are still superior and they have the power to say what you must do. yet at some point, they may be wrong, but that doesn't mean you'd lose your respect to them.

have a talk with your family. say what you feel about the things that are going on. try to explain in the most subtle way your side, the one that you think is right.
listen to them also. they have so many things to tell you.

you should be happy, you are with your parents, your family. think of all the sons and daughters that are not with their parents. think of me!!!(emo!haha!)
the time when you will have your own family, you would understand fully what's the real score between you and your family.

until here. God bless you and your family!

truly yours,


Jessa

talo!

lakad.
takbo.
lakad.
takbo.

nadapa.

bangon.
lakad.
takbo.

nadapa.
nabuwal.

bangon.
lakad.
takbo.

nadapa.
nabuwal.
naputikan!

bangon.
lakad.
takbo.

hingal.
buntong-hininga.

pagod.
poot.
galit.

sumuko.

talo.

for us!

FOR IN LOVE


one by one, take time to enjoy...



the mystery,



the beauty,



the sheer wonder of life



that surrounds you

every day.


=)

more tensions...

i found more tensions...
they're amazing...=)

Dialectical Tensions

Donna R. Palowski


One hundred sixty dialectical tensions emerged from the transcripts to provide data in answering research question two: Do the tensions identified by individuals fit within Baxter's typology of dialectical contradictions: autonomy-connection, prediction-novelty, openness-closedness, inclusion-seclusion, conventionality-uniqueness, and revelation-concealment? Analysis shows that all six dialectical tensions were identified in the data. Table Two identifies a breakdown of numbers and percentages. As indicated by the percentages, internal tensions were more prevalent than external tensions in descriptions of the relationships.

Autonomy-Connection

According to dialectic research, the tension of autonomy-connection is a primary tension in relationships (Baxter, 1990; Montgomery, 1993; Pawlowski, in press). From the great number of responses, this tension also appears primary in this study. Individuals described autonomy-connection in a variety of ways. Individuals characterized this tension as being a struggle, an internal conflict, and contentment. The following are examples from respondents:

It was like a drama of trying to decide if you want to spend the rest of your life with someone or not. It was challenging--he didn't want to give up his bachelor-hood and all his stuff.
We just decided to call it off about 3 weeks ago--We're not going cold turkey because we are still best friends. We're trying to do things together, but it's tough; I'm not the one who broke it off.
A sectioned orange--deciding to pull each piece apart and look at each one or take the orange as a whole and deal with it all at once.

These examples indicate that some individuals saw autonomy and connection in competition with each other or a problem that needed to be solved.
In the beginning stages of relationships, most individuals were satisfied to give up their own autonomy so as not to jeopardize the relationship itself:

It was me and you [sic] against the world--had an ally in everything. We couldn't do anything without each other. Very enmeshed. Spent all our time together.
I wanted to physically be near him. To put my arm around him and try to hold his hand. This comes from wanting to be close to him and developing a bond.

When describing the relationship as it develops over time, individuals seemed content with not having to be at each other's side. The partners felt comfortable searching for their independence once again:

We are still dependent and close, but we are settling down now. We can spend more time apart now.
You reach a comfort stage. You don't need to be with them all the time. You can have independence.
You're confident that you don't need immersion. You can be in the same room and not talk to each other and still be together.


Predictability-Novelty

Most dialectic research identifies autonomy-connection and openness-closedness as the two largest categories (Baxter, 1990; Montgomery, 1992; Werner & Baxter, 1994). Though in this study predictability-novelty was much larger than openness-closedness. Some individuals described "newness" during the initial stages of the relationship:

In the beginning, we did a lot of things that were just exciting. Fun things like white water rafting, something I never pictured myself doing.
When you thought of him, you became twitterpated.
Like a Valentine's Day party when you were kids and everyone brought their packages valentines. The little bags we all made were different and you tried to find the cutest one for the guy you really liked.
It's new, innocent, cutesy.

Other individuals expressed the need to bring some excitement back into the relationship. These individuals appeared to be lacking spontaneity in their relationships. In these instances, individuals saw the tension as problematic. This frustration is demonstrated with the following:

Sometimes I think he should give me a little present or a note or call me and say something sweet - but it's not going to happen. I know it's not going to happen&emdash;so why force it. I don't want anything forced.
So the relationship is on hold. It's like 'put everything on hold and we will deal with each other when we have time--later--not right now.' But the more I wait, the more hostile I get. So I feel pathetic. I really want someone to be romantic and attentive to my needs. I need some spark.

In addition, others felt comfortable with the amount of predictability and novelty in their relationships. These incidents seem to occur after the relationship had been established:

There are different emotions at the same time&emdash;like an umbrella or a cloud with many raindrop emotions that go with it. Happy raindrops--don't wake me in the morning raindrops. You become attuned to the emotions. I know what angry is--I know what to expect from my emotions when a relationship develops.
It's early summer now. Things are more relaxed and you really enjoy the give and take. Flowers are on occasion--but not as much as in the springtime. But it may be the little comments. It's more relaxed--more secure. Not as many quick changes in the weather pattern.

Finally, individuals demonstrated this tension through negative feelings. They did not see the novelty as fun, rather the surprise element in the relationship was destructive:

Then it was like dropping the bomb. She told me she lost the spark--there wasn't anything there. It was complete news to me. I mean a week before we had actually gone and looked at engagement rings.
It was like she went overboard in thinking bad things.

This particular incident shows how both poles of the tensions were operating in the same instance where the novelty created a negative result.
Predictability-novelty seems to be an important tension in relationships. It appears to be a prevalent tension occurring equally in all stages of relational development.


Openness-Closedness

In regard to openness/closedness, no pattern existed as to when either pole dominated in the relationship. Individuals indicated both self-disclosure and non-disclosure during the beginning of relationships:
Apprehension of saying the wrong thing--fear my feelings won't be reciprocated.
During dinner, he spilled his beans about everything--about all his old girlfriends. You'd ask him anything and he'd answer it. I thought how odd for him to disclose so much on the first date.
You want to know everything about them and they want to know everything about me. It's heavy emotional time--take off the masks--risk level is high.

As the relationship developed, conflict emerged as a force in the openness-closedness tensions. This conflict was internal or external, and was expressed as follows:

I will tend to avoid conflict. I will avoid it--but that's not healthy. One thing I've learned is that maybe I should just blow up and let it run its course.
You can get pissed off at him now. You know you'll still love him but you can tell him you're really really mad and you're still glad he's your partner--but you can say you're depressed because he yelled at you.

The apparent association between conflict and openness-closedness may have implications for those interested in relational conflict.
Finally, this tension was characterized by the comfort and ease of openness in the relationship. Such instances were described as follows:

Now, I feel comfortable--100% comfortable. We can talk about anything. He wouldn't think gross or anything--I like that--I can say how I feel. He knows I'm just venting--he knows what I'm thinking--I like that.
We have total honesty. The desire to make it work. We talk and work out our problems.

A great deal of research argues that the intimacy and self-disclosure are important to relationships (Hoppe & Ting-Toomey, 1994; VanLear, 1991). The importance of openness-closedness is also evident in this study as several individuals expressed deep emotions when struggling with this tension.


Inclusion-Seclusion

The inclusion-seclusion tension, which is the first of the external contradictions seemed to be broken down into three parts--dominant pole of inclusion, dominant pole of seclusion and an identification of both poles. When individuals talked of others being included in their activities, inclusion was both voluntary and involuntary. For example, instances occurred where individuals wanted or included others:

We created a history--we shared the same friends--the same experiences.
At Christmas time--I was ready to break up with him. My sister said "You're right, you need to focus more on you a little more and not so much on what he's doing." She said, "Make a list of reasons why you should and should not break up with him." I was mad and made a list of all the bad things and I was ready to break up with him. I practiced with my sister.

This appreciation of others was not always the case. One individual indicates instances where others were not invited:

Engagements are a pain--that's the time when you should decide if this is really right. Once you're engaged--everyone else is planning the wedding and asking "What else needs to be discussed?"
I felt like no one was listening to me. I kept hearing, "This is your day." But it was not my day&emdash;--t ended up being everyone else's day.

The dominant pole of inclusion is important in relationships as it may indicate the inclusion of others is not always by choice but more of an imposition by others.
In opposition, this tension was characterized as seclusion being dominant in the relationship. It may not be a struggle between inclusion, rather a purposeful decision not to include others:

This was our screw-up stage. My family wanted us to come to dinner and if we both didn't want to come we would say "He doesn't want to...--She doesn't want to...." We used each other for excuses--we were so dependent on each other we'd make excuses to our families.
Then you reach immersion&emdash;immerse yourself in the other person. All you see is each other&emdash;all you do is each other&emdash;you ignore everyone else.

Individuals use seclusion from others as a means of strengthening their own connection to each other.
Finally, inclusion-seclusion can encompass both poles within the relationship. This tension can be seen as a transition from one pole to another where the change is perceived as comfortable. These descriptions identify the shift between both poles of the tension:

I never went to Dad's by myself--we always went together to the house. Then when we settled down, I could go by myself to Dad's for a couple of hours and he could go play baseball.
That's when I think you are in a good relationship. When you move from being so close no one else could penetrate the circle, to expanding that circle to involve each other's friends--family--and become part of a bigger community.

Again the perception of comfort emerged which demonstrated the flexibility individuals in the relationship yield to each other. Not all individuals felt a comfort level, but a real struggle between the poles:

At first I thought he was a loser--hanging out with his fraternity friends. I was insecure--it was my first real relationship. We realized we had to stop partying and drinking. You have to distance yourself from your friends. We had a lot of friends. They wanted to pull us apart&emdash;they wanted us to date--but also wanted girls/boys night out. We'd meet at midnight. We could meet each other later--but not at 8:00--we had to be with our friends then.
It was a tug-of-war--a rubber band. Friends tugging one way--or we were tugging each other too.
Friends said, "No, you don't need him." We were pulled and stretched--tugging between friends--between us.


Conventionality-Uniqueness

Conventionality-Uniqueness was the smallest category identified. Most of this dialectic was manifested in terms of what is expected from society--what is considered traditional in the American culture.

My mom was really cool about the wedding. But everyone else wanted everything to be what they envisioned a wedding should be like. I thought "You know, let's just get married in the meadow outside."
I fully expected to be married by 25 and thinking about kids. The all-American boy. That's not even nine months away and I'm not even close now.

The expected norm for relational events was specified in these quotations. Even though individuals talked of the "ideal" tradition, conventionality was not always desired. Thus couples may conform to the ideals to satisfy others and not themselves.


Revelation-Concealment

The last tension is revelation-concealment. This tension was exemplified with examples of one pole or another and the struggle of both poles operating at the same time. Description of this tension appeared throughout relational development. The beginning of the relationship related more to revealment of the relationship itself.

We'd go to the movies together--but we were just friends. That's what we told people. We were adamant we were just friends.
I was dating another guy when we first began--but we began as friends. Then I had to tell the other guy about us and break it off with him.

As the relationship became more involved, individuals provided examples to show how they dealt with changes in the relationship. The development of a relationship is something people may want to share with others; however, these two examples show a contrast between revealment and concealment:

Then I ended up living with him. My whole family knew we were living together&emdash;but his parents didn't know.
He slipped the ring on my finger and we started calling people from the bar saying, "We're engaged!"

Relationship break-up seemed to be a revealing process. Dissatisfaction of the relationship was shared with others in hopes of redefining and rejuvenating the relationship:

The last six to eight months we've been coasting along--but going nowhere. We've talked to different people to help us--her parents--other people--ministers.

Another individual explains how revealment was used as a sense of finality for the relationship:

Then it ended and everyone knew it. It may not have totally ended--but it ended legally and we were no longer together.

In summary, individuals identified all six tensions. Scholars argue that autonomy-connection and openness-closedness are the primary strains within relationships (Baxter, 1988, 1990; Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; VanLear, 1991). However, in this study, primary tensions were autonomy-connection and predictability-novelty. Given this analysis, it is evident that all three internal contradictions need consideration in dialectic research.
It is also apparent that different poles of the tensions may be operating at different times of the relationship. For example, in early relationship stages, connection was greatly favored over autonomy, and novelty was more predominant than predictability. The openness/closedness tension appeared somewhat equal across the relationship development as individuals expressed both high degrees of openness and closedness in the beginning of their relationships.

The Dialectic of Expression/Privacy in Internal Form (Openness/Closedness)

Observation:

I want to blab my feelings, my wants, fears, apprehensions and all the people and things that trouble me to my considered true and special friend. Just so he’ll know and understand me. Yet, there is in me that suffers to reveal because of the fright of becoming vulnerable by disclosing personal information to someone who, I don’t think already considers me his true friend.

Importance of the topic:

Dialectical Theory is a distinct theory about the dynamics of communication in relationships. Grounded in different assumptions and focused on different relational processes, dialectical theory emphasizes the continuous, inherent tensions that arise from contradictory impulses for autonomy and connection, openness and closedness, and novelty and routine. Viewing dialectics as natural, ongoing, and productive, this theory provides impressive insight into dynamics that are central, continuous, and never fully resolved parts of relational life. Dialectical Theory encourages us to understand and appreciate the contradictions and continuous changes that saturate, complicate and enliven our relationships.

Communication Theories in Action, Julia T. Wood.

The observation I had falls on the internal form, which concerns with the tensions within relationships of Dialectic of Expression/Privacy. I believe this is so much sensible because it would flow on analyzing the tension between the desire to be open and expressive, and the need to be closed and private. It would focus on the feeling of struggle between self-disclosing and keeping personal information to the ones who experience it, including me. It would also show if the romantic ideal of totally open relationships would really be undesirable and perhaps unbearable in reality. And partners who shared absolutely everything would soon be intolerably bored by information in which they have no interest. Lastly, it could tell us if total openness would also damage a relationship, since some of our private thoughts might hurt our partners.

In truth, these things are already proved. Thanks to Leslie Baxter, who headed the efforts to develop and test dialectical theory in the communication field. Over the years, she and her associates have published many articles that explain, refine, and provide empirical support for the theory (Baxter, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993; Baxter and Simon, 1993; Dindia and Baxter, 1987; wood et al., 1994; Zorn, 1995).

However, it is better to see for ourselves. Especially for me who experience it with my friend.

This topic also interests me because it shows that we want to reveal ourselves to intimates because we feel closer when others understand and accept our innermost selves. We want the intimacy of sharing private information. Thus, we desire openness. Yet we also know that self-disclosures make us vulnerable, and we want to avoid the potential that personal information could be turned against us. In addition, many people prefer to preserve parts of themselves as completely private: they are just for us and not shared with anyone(Wood, 1995b).

Communication Theories in Action, Julia T. Wood.

the following are my sources and guides for my study:

http://www2.edutech.nodak.edu/ndsta/pawlowski.htm

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory53.htm

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~nw583098/rd.htm

Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2006.

Littlejohn, Stephen W. Theories of Human Communication. 4th and 5th eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1992, 1996.

West, Richard and Lynn H. Turner. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2000.

Wood, Julia T. Communication Theories in Action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.


I have already identified and developed my topic. I've found background information, guides and sources.
before the month of January ends, hopefully, i could already interview people with romantic partners and close friends. so that on February, i would be ready for my data analysis and interpretation.=D

sunsets

before I start falling in love...



I reminded myself that sunsets too,

are beautiful...



before they leave you



cold,


dark,


and alone.

=(

coma101: communication act!

My professor did not spare me a chance to hide and rest from the truckloads of requirements I have to pass in order to survive with my college life. It is gross, I thought. Why on earth do I still have to think of those during the holidays? I do not celebrate Christmas but I believe this is my time to free myself from worries in school.

Well, maybe professors do know what’s best for students like me. And Sir Nino stressed that we must also exercise our minds even when we are having our Christmas vacation. Pretty convincing, right?(laughs)

I had a lot of communication acts while I am here in Tacurong, my hometown. From my self-talks, to chats with my family and friends, to smiles given to strangers and to the talks in public – all were observed carefully. I was able to communicate verbally, and sometimes with gestures. I also used a cellphone, sent electronic mails and even wrote a letter to someone.

But what I want to talk about now is the very simple communication act I have seen while I was strolling in our children’s park.

A mother was with her child. When they passed by a stall of toys, the child pleaded her mother to buy her a doll. her mother didn't say anything. Instead, she gave her child a very bad look and pinched her to express her disapproval like saying "NO!"

Berlow's communication model:

Sender: MOTHER
Message: DISAPPROVAL, "NO!"
Channel: GESTURE (BAD LOOK, PINCH)
Receiver: CHILD

The message in this communication act was clearly sent to the receiver. I can prove this because I saw how disappointed and sad the child was after she was given a bad look and was pinched by her mother. Therefore, the child knew that her mother wouldn't buy her a doll because of those gestures.

Anyway, I just felt sorry for the child. =(