English language
Please answer to the following 3 scenarios, mark your answers as Berger & Eisenberg#1, Bitzer & Jourard#2, Daft & Ekman#3
Refer to the links for more information orR answering these scenarios and questions.
Berger & Eisenberg#1
Answer the following question in 100 words or less.You’re sitting in a restaurant enjoying a meal when two men at a nearby table start fighting. Well, it really isn’t a fight but more of an argument. Well, it really isn’t an argument but more of a discussion. Okay, you were eavesdropping but for good reason. At the nearby table sits Charles (Chuck) Berger and Eric Eisenberg. Chuck tells Eric that people communicate to reduce uncertainty (or manage it) while Eric tells Chuck that people have a need to be strategically ambiguous when communicating. Your job is to resolve the issue by (1) using evidence and reasoning to show that you understand both theories by defining them while (2) offering your perspective of what makes the most sense based on the two theories, and (3) provide a real example from your life experiences that proves that your perspective makes sense.
https://literarydevices.com/ambiguity/.
https://www.mastersincommunications.com/research/interpersonal-communication/uncertainty-reduction-theory.
Bitzer & Jourard#2
In one hundred words or less, define the theories of Lloyd Bitzer (rhetorical exigence) and Sidney Jourard (self-disclosure) and explain a situation where a rhetorical exigence required that YOU self-disclose to a significant other. Make certain that you abide by both theories in explaining the situation and the outcome. In your answer, clearly identify the rhetorical exigence and the self-disclosure. Additionally, use Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham’s Johari Window to define the communication profile for the situation you described, the relationship you identified, and the person with whom you self-disclosed. Using percentages (no windowpane can have a zero in it) to show windowpane size, create before and after Johari Windows to show changes in the relationship based on the interaction outcome.
http://work911.com/communication/skillselfdisclosure.htm.
https://www.communicationtheory.org/the-johari-window-model/.
http://rhetorica.net/kairos.htm.
Daft & Ekman#3
In one-hundred words or less using Richard Daft and Robert Lengel’s Media Richness Theory, define the theory then explain a situation where the inappropriate medium was used by YOU and what would have been a better medium choice and why. Three forms of media must appear in the answer. In your answer, the motive and goal for initiating communication as well as the the outcome must be present. Face-to-Face cannot be the better medium selected to improve the situation and only one medium of the three can be the solution.
Using Ekman and Friesen’s nonverbal categories (and with Walther’s Social Information Processing Theory in mind), explain how nonverbal communication hurt and/or helped the situation. Identify a specific nonverbal behavior and the Ekman and Friesen nonverbal category (regulator, emotional expression, emblem, illustrator, or manipulator) the nonverbal behavior belongs. Remember, it is relationship, context, and content that determines what a nonverbal sign means. http://campus-adr.net/ODRModule/media_richness_theory.html.
https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Emotional-And-Conversational-Nonverbal-Signals.pdf.
