COMMUNICATION THEORIES

Did the book make sense to you?

After a thorough study of the book from different aspects, I have concluded that the book makes perfect sense, in fact that theories are presented in a way which do not make reader drained despite the common feeling that communication theories are sometime dry in nature. Author Em Griffin has presented the book in an interesting manner using every day examples in the texts, supported by evidence and findings of different scholars in a clear and effective manner. However, in accordance with my perception regarding the book, I found some of the examples very boring and lengthy, which distracted me from the main point. However, there is adequate support for theories in every chapter, which makes this, book a comprehensive for scholars of communication. The book prefects sense and presents valuable information, which keeps reader engaged throughout the book.

Did the book make sense to you?

Yes the book makes sense to me because it has many theories to learn and apply communication.

Which theories made the most sense and why?

The theory of cognitive dissonance defends the idea that 1) people are generally self-motivated to reduce ideological dissonance (inconsistency of ideas) by changing their perceptions and cognitions, while creating other cognitions to cement their system of beliefs or 2) alternatively, reducing the importance given to the dissonant and incoherent ideological elements that can disrupt your system beliefs .

When people claim that their expectations are real, require that reality fits to what they think they should be, in order to find a sense of balance. But when reality does not conform to what these people think it should be, and then they come into cognitive dissonance and a sense of discomfort and unease. To remedy this situation, these people will always try to avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of discomfort and therefore cognitive dissonance.

For example, it is possible that someone who is against bullfighting not pass without eating beef. To "patch" this inconsistency (cognitive dissonance) that bothers you, that person simply devalues the death of animals in slaughterhouses, saying for example that "it's a quick death." On the other hand, perhaps this person could be against bullfighting and in favor of abortion on demand: and for mending the contradiction (cognitive dissonance), which is to protect the life of an animal and not take the same position in relation to human life, ...