New Communication Theory - Essay Example

New Communication Theory Name: Institution: 7th April, 2013 New Communication Theory Introduction Communication is the need to pass information from one individual to another and anticipate to be given a feedback. In order to understand the process of communication, researchers have developed many theories to help develop and explain the key concepts of communication and social interactions. This particular essay focuses on the Social Penetration Theory and the Communication Privacy Theory. The Social Penetration Theory of Communication This is a theory by theorists known as Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor. In their theory, they explained how the process of communication improves the relationship between two or more individuals. In its development, they mentioned that whenever two or more individuals meet, they become anxious to make friendship which is a process (Altman & Taylor, 1997). The theory states that, as relationships are developing, the topics of communication by persons become deeper, and with the continued penetration process, it could be possible it reaches its inner core and therefore know a person’s inner identities well. In their theory, they compared personalities to onions (multilayered nature of individuality and behavior) as a way of doing an analysis of communication (Altman & Taylor, 1997). The outer layer represents an outside appearance that indicates how people judge you in regard to your actions or the basic outer information that people see. The inner core represents the sensitive parts of individuals which contain people’s faith, beliefs, values, and many other secrets that may have taken place. These are revealed as friendships get tighter, thus self disclosure. Further, they mentioned breadth and depth of self disclosure and supposed that peripheral or unimportant/ minor things are shared more often than not and faster than private details. Similarly, self-disclosure and penetration are reciprocal more so in the starting stages of developing the relationship and rapid or fast but is reduced in speed as one reaches the inner tightly wrapped layers respectively. Finally they noted that to de-penetrate is a gradual procedure that withdraws layer-by-layer (Altman & Taylor, 1997). Taylor and Altman also suggested that most people would want to reduce their costs and maximize their rewards when in a relationship with someone (Altman & Taylor, 1997). Whenever costs are greater than rewards in a relationship, abuse may arise, therefore the relationship is harmful (Outcome = Rewards - Costs). In addition, they compared how happy or sad an individual is in a relationship as a measure of satisfaction (Satisfaction = Comparison Level) pointing out to the notion that past experiences play an important role in shaping our thoughts and emotions about initiating and developing relationships with personalities (Altman & Taylor, 1997). Finally, they mentioned stability in the relationship to be important. This they equated to the comparative level of options. A relationship may be bad or one party has a bad experience with it but chooses to remain in it because it is better than what their understanding of the other alternative relationships is in the real world (Hargie, 2010). However, this theory has weaknesses in that it pegs its reliance on self disclosure. There is certain information that individuals may feel to be secretive and if given out may disappoint the other party in the relationship thus terminating it (Petronio, 2002). Similarly, comparing an individual’s personal information to a fixed layering of onions is untrue because such private concerns of individuals change gradually and may have a sequence of twists and turns (Petronio, 2002). Finally, the reward-cost factor is a surprise because in relationships, we do not really need to depend on the most interest of what is gained because it is more of a self-centred motive. These weaknesses that limit self-disclosure therefore necessitate the need for a hybrid theory (Petronio, 2002). Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory This is a theory by Sandra Petronio. She based her argument on the need for communication boundaries. She facilitated the need to understand the concept of disclosure. This theory suggests that individuals control their privacy concerns by making a decision to reveal or conceal information about them while interacting with friends.. It is evident that Petronio’s theory of CPM and Altman and Taylor’s Social penetration theory both embrace the idea of disclosure. The only difference is that Petronio’s theory majors on explaining how and why personalities in a relationship regulate their privacy and the disclosure of private information (Petronio, 2002). In explaining her theory, she (Petronio) points out the relationship between disclosure and the dialectic of privacy. The dialectic of privacy that Petronio uses in her approach to explaining the process of developing relationships is drawn from Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery’s theory of Relational Dialectics which states that several approaches to the contradicting impulses or reactions relational life should be discussed (Petrionio, 2002). She supposes that before disclosure takes place or a decision is made to reveal any private information, the costs and benefits of giving out this information that is rather private should be weighed with regard to what information will be accepted, owned, spread and used. She however suggests that the decision on whether to reveal or conceal information does not depend on individuals will or choice but should be based on four principles (Petronio, 2002). First is that individuals or groups should believe in their own private information. Secondly, because believing in the information is ownership, individuals feel they reserve the right to control the private information flow to others. Thirdly, and fourth is that individuals use privacy regulations to choose whether to open a privacy boundary to disclose private information or maintain the closed boundary to conceal the information and once people reveal, they in other words make the people they disclose to the information shareholders of it and make a presumption that these co-owners to the private information will strictly follow the regulations of privacy that already exist or negotiate for fresh ones. As such, the nature of managing private information is shifted from being an individual decision to being a collective practice. Thus, this theory just seeks to create a difference between that which is contained in the public sphere (self-disclosure) to that which is contained in a private sphere (private information) (Milberg et al., 1995). Therefore it necessitates the need to control or regulate information depending on the possible positive or negative outcomes that may be associated with it. Therefore, as Altman and Taylor insist on giving out all information, Petronio insists on the need to only give out some information (Petronio, 2002). However, Sandra Petronio’s theory has weaknesses that it fails to address related to its dialectical nature. The theory does not take into consideration the clear difference between monologic, dualistic, and dialectic approach (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Dialectic involves several viewpoints of an issue but CPM theory picks on treating privacy and disclosure as two independent factors of one another that have the ability to coexist in cycle rather than in the dynamic or vibrant interaction characteristic of dialectics thus making it a dualistic approach. Therefore, there is a need to look at disclosure and privacy simultaneously in a decision making process. As such, a hybrid theory that combines CPM and the Social Penetration Theory should be developed. CPM therefore controls the depth or degree of information that can be shared freely without negative consequences that may affect a relationship unlike Social Penetration Theory. Combining the two to form a hybrid theory will therefore allow for disclosure of information and at the same time giving the informant access to the right of reserving privacy, thus a powerful theory. How the 1st and 2nd Theory leads towards the need to Form a Hybrid Theory As noted above, Social Penetration theory advocates majorly for self-disclosure as the main object for getting to know one another better in a relationship without creating boundaries or giving considerations to the effect of sharing some information while CPM theory indicates that there is a need to categorize information into two; private information and public information, thus formulating the boundaries. The nature of the information categorized in the two boundaries is then used to determine whether to reveal or not reveal the information to other boundaries. This outline shows that both theories embrace the need to disclose information, but CPM insists on controlling the amount and nature of the information given out in relationships as important. Therefore, the smallest contradiction between the two theories can be solved by combining them to form a hybrid theory that allows limited self-disclosure (Westin, 1968). The Hybro-Communication Theory (Hybrid Theory) Formulation In regard to the key concept of Social Penetration Theory by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, there is need to have self-disclosure in a relationship to facilitate the process of developing friendship. This indicates that it is a must that self-disclosure without limits be present for a relationship to develop thus making it a theory that is objective in nature because it seeks to achieve self-disclosure (Chelune, 1987). On the contrary, CPM theory is built fundamentally on the need to develop rules that control the information that is disclosed to parties in a relationship and seeks to look more into relationship development as a subject that depends on privacy. When creating the boundaries, a thought is given to the information from an individual in several angles; costs, benefits, ownership, use, satisfaction, negative effects and degree of spread before it is considered for disclosure. Because of the multifaceted view point of this theory, its main objective is to evaluate several factors that surround a relationship during development thus making it a theory that is interpretive in nature. Therefore, the regulated private-social penetration theory is interpretive in nature and falls under the paradigm of giving both self-disclosure and privacy a chance in explaining the process of communication and relationship development (Milberg et al., 1995). It therefore seeks to limit the degree of information given out while taking note of the fact that to disclose relevant information about self after considering its possible outcome and how the information will be received by other parties in the relationship is important. Application of the Hybro-Communication Theory This particular theory is applicable to businesses and more so with the upcoming businesses that are done by use of the fast developing technologies, taking into consideration the internet (Altman, cited in Petronio, 2002; Stanton & Stam; West & Turner, 2004). As much as there are visible differences in regard to privacy issues in face-to-face vis-a-vis computer-mediated communication situations, most of the fundamental use of this theory is related to online privacy management (Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 2010). In doing e-commerce many a time companies need to share information about themselves or their customers in order to achieve their goals of marketing. As such, there is a relationship developed between customers and the company (Fox, 2000). Similarly, because businesses that are done on-line have partners that may come in the form of suppliers, consultants, retailers and competitors in the same product line, they tend to share a lot of information. This makes a network or group of parties that associate ( Sheehan & Hoy, 1999). Customers may share information that is considered private to them by the company that serves them after developing some form of trust (West, 2004). This happens so whenever online transactions take place. When doing e-commerce, a customer may decide to share personal data with a company such as credit card numbers, account numbers, personal addresses, country of residence, sex, phone contacts, and national identity card numbers (Metzger, 2006). At the beginning of the relationship, the customer may share very little information meaning the breadth is narrow according to Taylor and Altman’s Theory but with time more information is revealed meaning the depth increases (Altman & Taylor, 2007). In spite of the customers will to share information, there is still the tendency of the customer feeling like they still need to have control over the information and who accesses it. This means that they had developed a boundary by categorizing this information as private, but have decided to break the boundary by sharing it with a company (Hargie, 2010). Once it is given to the company, they may decide to post it on their web site for their employees to access if they need it but limit those who access it. This indicates that the right to reserve the privacy of the information has changed from being an individual decision to being a collective decision (Culnan, 1999). Thus the right of accessing or not accessing the information will depend on whether the company is ready to keep the original terms or boundaries of the information or negotiate for new ones with the customer (West, 2004). In the process of negotiating the privacy terms, then the considerations of whether to disclose or not disclose the information to other players or parties such as suppliers, competitors, employees in the same firm and other customers is done with regard to the analysis of the privacy terms that the customer, suppliers and competitors are likely to subscribe to and similarly note the possible risks that the sharing of the information may pose (Hargie, 2010). If the information leaks to bad competitors in the market, then they may use the information to tarnish the name of the responsible company or woe their customers to their side through their contact details (West, 2004). Similarly, the client risks possible rogue activities (West, 2004). Therefore, it is evident that in this process of decision making of whether to share/ disclose and conceal information, revealing of information is inevitable between the customer and the company but once the company has accessed the information they need for business purposes, they, together with the client, must keep this information within themselves, or if they have to share it, they have to revisit the privacy terms. If it is safe to share, they will do so, if not then the process becomes an infringement of rights (West, 2004). In this aspect, both the concepts of the Social Penetration Theory and the Communication Privacy Management Theory are taken into consideration thus the Regulated Privacy Social Penetration Theory in action. Conclusion and Weaknesses of the Regulated Privacy Social Penetration Theory From the above sentiments, it is evident that in any communication process to take place in order to develop a communication relationship, two factors are imperative; the need to disclose information and privacy. As such controlling or regulating the amount of information that is accessed is critical in ensuring that information that may be injurious or harmful to the relationship is not released to the public. Whenever any member or party to a relationship feels secure and trusts the other partner with vital information that is considered critical, they both confide in one another and therefore the relationship develops rapidly for the benefit of the both of them. This is particularly the importance of the hybrid theory. However, the hybrid theory as indicated involves the sharing of private information from one individual to other parties or co-partners in the relationship. This means that the right to control access to this information that was initially from one individual is now shifted to a third, fourth or many other parties that may be in the network. With the information in the hands of these parties, it becomes very difficult to give an assurance to the original owner of the information that no one else will access the information. It all depends with the policies of the multiple parties that take part in the agreement. Diagrammatic Representation of the Hybrid Communication Theory Privacy terms revisited Choice to share or not made Depending on possible risks Customer’s information (Examples age, sex, phone contacts, address) Original privacy terms upheld References Guerrero, L. K. Anderson, P. A. & Afifi, W.A. (2010). Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships. New York, Sage Publishers. Retrieved from, http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=NqLBeGE41RkC&pg=PA386&lpg=PA386&dq=Motivations+underlying+topic+avoidance+in+close%09relationships.&source=bl&ots=cXivVE6-z2&sig=YMrptGxa8gn-V8dT-NU5PORVsWY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YDl4UdDRE6ef7Aa-w4HwAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Motivations%20underlying%20topic%20avoidance%20in%20close%09relationships.&f=false Hargie, O. (2010). Skilled Interpersonal Communication; Research, Theory and Practice. 5th Ed. New York, Routledge. Retrieved from, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Skilled-Interpersonal-Communication-Research-Practice/dp/0415432049#reader_0415432049 Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja& ed=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uky.edu%2F~drlane%2Fcapstone% Finterpersonal%2Fsocpen.html&ei=13h1UZirKYro7AaLyYHYCQ&usg=AFQjCN m0mMKg_tFpvH28wNXIZMUe2sm0A&sig2=QdV7fexvYSTq5inCIGPWng&bvm bv.45512109,d.ZGU Chelune, G. J. (1987). A neuropsychological perspective of interpersonal communication. InV. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-Disclosure: Theory, Research, and Therapy (pp. 10-34). New York: Plenum. http://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=osTqcaiflJQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=A+neuropsychological+perspective+of+interpersonal+communication&ots=HIRpC3_ScW&sig=YNxw9CFH1RMgJIyUeoxAqwKaB9U&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=A%20neuropsychological%20perspective%20of%20interpersonal%20communication&f=false Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999). “Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation”. Organization Science, 10 (1), 104-115. http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/weitz/mar7786/articles/procedural%20fairness%20and%20privacy.pdf Metzger, M. J. (2006). “Effects of site, vendor, and consumer characteristics on website trust and disclosure.” Communication Research, 33 (3), 155-179. http://netko.informatika.uni-mb.si/mcnet/upload/attachments/marko_ivan/E-business.pdf Milberg, S. J., Burke, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Kallman, E. A. (1995). “Values, personal information, privacy, and regulatory approaches.” Communications of the ACM, 38 (12), 65-74. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-17779531/values-personal-information-privacy.html Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=D9iHS5qjFz0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=Boundaries+of+Privacy:+Dialectics+of+Disclosure&source=bl&ots=4ucZJuAM2Y&sig=7mKnt_Hce40zE79fsVVGOZkcnw0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fz94UbSQN--M7AbckoEw&redir_esc=y Westin, A. (1968). Privacy and Freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume, 25, Issue 1. Retrieved from, http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3659&context=wlulr West, R., L., & Turner, L. H. (2004). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill http://www.amazon.com/IntroducingCommunication-Theory-AnalysisApplication/dp/0767430344#reader_0767430344 Baxter, L.A., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=YDfJ3aUHEk0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Ba ter,+L.A.,+%26+Montgomery,+B.+(1996).+Relating+Dialogues+and+dialectics.+N w+York:%09Guilford+Press.&source=bl&ots=i93lThhQ4I&sig=XnD9tHN2K7ML XPtsw2Lou07i-0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EX51UfK0JIOA4gTc 4CQBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA Read More