Experimental research

Experimental research is interesting to me because the research I do in my field of study doesn’t contain much experimental research. Doing experimental research for social significance is more difficult compared to the medical field or other fields where groups can be controlled. I thought the example of smiling was also very intriguing because in my own experience, I find the data to be true. I am a waitress, and I thought it was funny how the experiment showed that waitresses who smile more are given larger tips. I get made fun of at my work for being the most “fake” with my customers, but in all honesty, I make more money when I am in a good "smiley" mood. When I come into work really mad, and can’t put that smile on, people are turned off by my lack of smiles and kindness that they expect when they go out to dine. I think experimental research is one of the most difficult to obtain results from due the fact that they have to think of all environmental factors, but in the end, I think they have a tendency to come up with the most accurate results.

Hardships in ethnographic research

I love talking about this type of research, because it is the type I hope to conduct when I graduate with my sociology degree. Ethnographic research can be a very complicated form of research because researchers are in contact with their subjects. The text talks about how an ethnographer can have a moral dilemma when deciding whether to be covert or overt with their study subjects. This is a very important decision to make because ethnographers spend a great deal of time immersed in the culture or group that they are studying that an early decision needs to be made. You may lose trust with your subjects if you begin your research as covert, and later decide that you feel bad for lying, and then you decide that you now want to tell them the truth and become overt. Ethnography is all about building rapport with the people you are studying, whether you tell them you are or you don't.

Researchers are supposed to stay as objective as possible, but ethnographic research acknowledges that the researcher is a participant and that it is not the worst thing in the world for them to be a little subjective. This may be another moral dilemma regarding a researcher using this method because you have to identify your own bias and your own beliefs and make sure that they are put aside. In my Qualitative research course last semester there was an example of an ethnographic study of women who had joined a white supremacist group. The researcher held strong beliefs that racism and prejudice was repulsive, but she had to put her own feelings aside in order to get the data that she needed. In her interview after the publishing of her study, she talked about how hard it was to not interrupt or disagree with the women that she was studying. She had to put her own morality aside, and suck it up for the sake of learning something about her subjects.

Ethnography

This chapter about research methods is something I have studied in classes such as qualitative research and quantitative research methods. I was happy that this communications book had a little bit about ethnography. Ethnography is a form of qualitative research that puts the researcher among its subjects. I find it to be the most interesting form of methodology because I feel that you gain some of the most valuable information through participant observation and interviews compared to a piece of paper with a questionnaire. Actually speaking with another individual gives the researcher an advantage to pick up on nonverbal cues as well as voice inflection as well as open ended answers. Instead of someone having to check agree or disagree on a survey, researchers get to hear the answers that interviewees or subject of their research have to say outside of a checked box.

A research question that I would use ethnographic methodology to study about deception could be "How do wives communicate suspicions of deceit with their husbands of over 5 years?" I would choose ethnography to answer this research question because I feel I would get the best answers. If I went to interview people who have been married over 5 years, and asked them questions about what happens when they feel like they are being lied to or cheated on, I am going to get thorough answers that could not be answered as in depth with other research methods.

Organizations

There were so many topics that I could relate to in Chapter 8, but the idea of downward, and upward communication made me think about communication in my own job. This chapter stresses the issues that arise from all three types of organizational communication, and I have seen the problems first hand as a server for a corporate restaurant. Problems arise with downward communication at my place of employment because we are receiving too much information, and too little all at once. We are told an overwhelming amount of information pertaining to goals and expectations, but we are not given the information about how to succeed. Conflict occurs when the servers are being criticized for not meeting the goals when we feel that our means for achievment were never communicated in the downward form of organizational communication.

Upward communication is full of tension in my line of work. There is no doubt that servers withold negative information from managers. We are always in a struggle to keep a customers complaint or an accidental broken glass a secret from managers because we don't want to be seen as incompetent. Superiors then don't know they need to order new glasses, or that a customer is going to go tell 3 other people that they had a terrible time dining at our restaraunt. As a tight coupled organization, effective upward and downward communication are important because if the manager knew they had to replace a glass, or maybe give the unsatisfied customer a coupon to come back, then the servers would have sufficient glassware, and more customers coming in for them to make money.

Mediums and Messages

I would have to agree with Marshall McLuhan about he medium being the message because of my own personal experience with all different kinds of media. Reading about the oil spill with "linear logic" would give me a much different impression than when I would watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC which employs "mosaic logic". Mediums are as important as the message because "[the medium] often determines which messages will be transmitted and which will be ignored" (p. 307). What will be broadcasted depends on the type of media. The text talks about the users of Internet as a medium gets to search for his or her own interests, while ignoring interests that are different from theirs. Television as a medium broadcasts tries to broadcast to the masses, so essentially their message will be different than the Internet. The television experience will create a different message than the Internet because the user of the medium receives different messages from each media.

I like McLuhan's idea about television being a "cool medium" because I have to fill in detail while watching television. There are times when television is not sequenced or rational giving it the "mosaic logic", unlike print media. Because television focuses on personalities of people, performers or public figures must have a certain "coolness" in order for them to be successful on TV. People who are too rash or abrupt would would have a much harder time being successful on television. Television as a cool medium requires personalities of casts and other television figures to have a certain type of personality.

Cyberspace

If my recollection is correct, I don't believe that I have ever made or had a friendship EXCLUSIVELY online. My father was always very protective over the Internet, and heavily regulated the people I talked to online. Most of my online interactions have been through electronic emails, synchronous chats, and with the enrollment of online classes, asynchronous discussion formats. Even though most of the people I speak to online are people whom I have f2f relationships with, the interaction is still a little bit different. I am a little bit of a girly girl, and when I have f2f interactions with others I usually like to look presentable, unlike when I'm talking to someone online on my laptop in my PJ's. My online discussions are also usually shorter and more to the point than my face to face interactions. My online relationships usually complement or support my face to face interactions, but I could assume some of the differences exclusive online relationship could have compared to f2f. I know when I talk to my friends online, their reactions are not always instant. When you are in a f2f conversation, you can see the emotion, hear the tone of voice, and understand the context of a real life situation. Online I could see how miscommunication may be inevitable due to the unavailability of non-verbal cues, and the allowance for a communicator to delay a response.

The closest cyber-relationship I have is with my colleagues and professors of my online classes. Because we use an asynchronous discussion format, I have got to learn a little bit about a lot of people over the course of my summer session. I can say that we have formed cyber-relationships , but I don't think I have ever formed a personal cyber-relationship. I guess I have been taught that the Internet can be full of predators which may or may not be the case. With strict rules, and fear, instilled by my father about Internet chatting and posting of personal photos made me a little reluctant to form relationships with people online unless I also knew them in person as well. Someday this might change as it is becoming more and more acceptable to form relationships online with websites such as E-harmony and the like.

Groupthink

I know that several of us have written about groupthink in our blogs, but I do think it is one of the most dangerous and intriguing concepts in chapter 7. When I first read this section of the chapter I couldn't help but think about the case of Charles Manson. I'm sure most of you know who this serial killer was, but the unique part about these murders was that they were committed by a group. The leader of the group was Charles Manson, but in my opinion, the members of the group were in the state of groupthink when they decided to carry out some gruesome crimes.

This small group, some would call a cult, experienced several of the symptoms described on page 190. They were so immersed in the group, and its ideology, that they didn't have a sense of reality. They believed that their group goal was more important than anything, and they also held shared stereotypes. I was not a member of the group, so I can't say anything definitively, but it is highly probable that the group experienced a high level of self-censorship and illusion of unanimity. This case may be different because group members may have feared death if they spoke up, yet they also may have feared being outcasted from the group or other sanctions. Although this may be an extreme case of groupthink, I think it illustrates an example of the dangerous effects groupthink can have, and also how powerful it can be over all group members involved.

filtering theory

When choosing a romantic partner, I can relate to all of the filters as playing a role in the process. When judging the attractiveness of others, the first step has to be contact. Therefore, the sociological or incidental cues must be there for a relationship to grow. I have had several friends meet a potential partner who moved away for college. More often than not, these relationships suffered because "physical proximity" (pg.158) was not close enough. Usually these relationships ended after a month or two because "maintaining contact with someone thousands of miles away is extremely difficult" (pg.158).

The characteristics that lead me to judge someone as unattractive begin with the preinteraction cues. Once I am in existence in the same space with someone else, the first thing I pick up on is the physical appearance. Although this may be a shallow approach, attractiveness originates in the likeness of a potential partner's "body type or physical beauty"(pg. 161). If there is no physical attraction, I think it would be very difficult to move into the cognitive realm. I think the preinteraction cues can be a stronger filter for some, and weaker for others. Someone may completely reject another in this stage, while others may feel it is important to not judge someone by their looks whatsoever.

Although Duck's theory is brief in the text, the filters seem to fit and make sense when I consider everyday reality and my own experience with relationship partners. All of these cues have been present in my judgment or evaluation of someone I may want to form a romantic relationship with. It's interesting to think about because my last relationship was with someone who I would usually not be physically attracted to. Because I worked with this person, I saw him everyday and got to know him using interaction cues and cognitive cues, I totally changed my view on wanting a relationship with that person. Our comfortability with each other made me reconsider what I wanted out of our friendship, even though I almost filtered that possibility based on preinteraction cues.

Rigid Role Relations

Although I could argue that all rigid role relations are difficult to work out and change, I believe that competitive symmetry would be the hardest to change. When there is a struggle for the one-up position, it is usually a pattern that is persistent and never-ending. Also, if the core values of the male and female stress that the male should have dominance, and the female wants dominance as well, it could be hard to alter the cultural perspectives that have shaped the two individuals. The book stresses that patterns should be looked at, and not personality or character, but sometimes being a dominant controlling individual can lie in the core of who you are as a person. Power and control are important to some, so if you get two people are in constant strain for the dominant position, it would be a pretty difficult aspect to alter.

I believe that the rigid complementarity pattern would be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved because one partner is feeling as if their opinion doesn't matter. The text talks about how interpersonal communication builds self esteem, and sense of identity, and if the conversation and decisions are always being made by the dominant person, the submissive partner could feel a loss of importance or self-worth. Always being told what to do, or how to act, can make one feel as though they are incompetent, resulting in a lower self-esteem.

A Rigid complementarity pattern would also be the most damaging to a relationship because of the loss of self-esteem or need to be heard. If there is a member of a relationship who is feeling like they are being dominated, and has taken steps to gain a one-up position and has failed, it wouldn't take long for the relationship to go into a "regressive spiral".

Week 4 Q#3

Assumed similarity was an interesting concept to read about in chapter 12. The assumption that there are universal behaviors that mean the same thing in different cultures can lead to misunderstandings among different cultural groups. Even though a smile is universal, that does not mean that the smile means the same thing in every culture one may be exposed to. The text uses the example of how a smile could be an invitation for sex in Japan, whereas in the U.S. a smile is a friendly greeting that usually does not imply sexual favors.

There are several ways in which ethnocentrism could play a role in assumed similarity. Because one may believe their culture is better than any other, then they may be offended by someone else because they aren't similar. An outsider in a different culture may feel offended when they reach their hand to shake in a greeting, or go for a hug, because their invitation for physical contact may not be warranted in the other culture.

I thought this concept was interesting because sometimes we spend so much time in our own culture, that we never get the chance to see that assumed similarity even exists. In order to see that we actually do assume that there are universal behaviors that mean the same things, we have to be placed somewhere where our assumptions are challenged, like the case of the girl in Japan.

Week 4 Q#2

The question asks if we believe in the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises, and I actually am having a hard time saying I believe in all three. The premise I have the hardest time accepting is the idea that "humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control" (pg. 353). Growing up I have been taught that humans are born as pure and good, and the world later takes hold of them and shapes who they are. I can't agree with a premise that says a baby is born in sin, because I think human nature considers babies to be the most fragile and innocent beings in existence.

I have accepted the rationality premise, because I hold my own belief that humans can find the truth through evidence and logistical analysis. The problem sometimes is that evidence can be interpreted through human mediums which can then alter the meaning of the scientific. I think that humans can get closer to truth with logics, but science is never absolute, it only rules things out. The law is definitely an institution based on the rationality premise.

The Mutability premise stands as the strongest premise of the the three in my opinion. In human nature, we are shaped by our natural environment, and we are always trying to "improve humans....physical and psychological circumstances". I would assume the institution of medicine relies on this premise especially with the new pathological definitions for psychological problems.

Week 4 Q#1

After reading this chapter it becomes evident to me that we are all a product of our cultures. Cultures are present in all groupings of people around the world, and there are a set of values, beliefs, and attitudes based on what behaviors are normal and what behaviors are not normal. Normality and abnormality are culturally relative, so this must mean that culture does produce how we interact and how we behave. Culture essentially produces us because it has been learned from birth. If born in the United States, your culture defines your individualism at high value, where if you were born in Japan, collectivism would be valued. Upon birth, culture is already operating to shape your future normal behaviors, whereas if you were born somewhere across the world, your “normal behaviors” may be rather odd. This goes to show just how much culture influences our “habits, beliefs, and impossibilities”.

I think the most important out of the several ways we can break through the limits of our culture is the “extent to which newcomers are open, resilient, and self-confident” (pg. 365). In order to understand other cultures better, the person experiencing a new culture must respect the fact that other people may not be the same as them. We can break through the limits of our cultures by not being ethnocentric, and by not always equating difference with bad. Prejudices and stereotypes must be challenged if anyone hopes to open their mind to new practices, new ways of living, or to assimilate into a new culture.