The End with a Bang!

(above belongs to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h4U-uKgn6Q. I own none of it)

 

The video above was a shooting scene f’rom the show CSI. Such shooting action is all too common on TV nowadays, and such media messages may actually cause audiences to develop a negative view of the world. This concept is known as the Cultivation Theory, where messages in media are cultivated indirectly by the audience.

Heavy viewers (4hrs or more daily) are exposed to more violence and are thus affected by the Mean World Syndrome, which is the perception that the world is worser than it really is. I suppose I ascribe to such a syndrome. Although I’ve never been to the United States, I’ve always held the impression that I’ll encounter street muggers, gangsters, or some shooting maniac if I was there on, say, a vacation. You can’t really blame me too – look at all the American shows on TV! They almost always depict America as a violent place with hedious crimes and shooting-frenzies. Even the video above of CSI showed such violence in an otherwise peaceful town setting. Indeed, many friends (even those that have been to the States) have highlighted to me that America isn’t all that bad, but I still can’t shake off the feeling that some lunatic might just pounce on me with a knife or shoot me just for the fun of it.

 Cultivation Theory also suggests that television is creating a homogeneous and fearful populace. I concur – I don’t think I’ll ever want to take a trip to America. How about you? Are you as affected by the depiction of America on TV? Do you ever wonder how you may just end up being stabbed while walking in the neighborhood, or pounder over the possibility of crossing into gangster territory? Are you subjected to this theory? Will you go to a place to America?

Getting your attention…& making you pay

(Above taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NfuniN0Sdg. I own none of it)

 

Well did that influence you to buy a lottery ticket? Probably not. Let me explain why.

Media communication theories include the ‘Powerful Effects Theory’ and the ‘Limited Effects Theory’. The former suggests that media is very influential, and that the audience is passive. The latter, however, suggests that the audience is active, and can resist media messages.

Fact of the matter is, these theories are two extremes, with neither happening in reality. Rather, it’s somewhat a combination of these two theories. For the advertisement above, I’m guessing we were more slated towards the Limited Effects Theory, because the main message to buy lottery tickets was not really influential at all. Gosh, even the plot (though funny) had no link whatsoever to  convincing the audience to buy tickets.     

To be fair to this advertisement, Moderate Effects models claim that media can still influence the audience, and that the selectivity of the audience does not equate to having no effect at all.  So perhaps, the next time you take an exam, you might suddenly have a strange subconscious impulse to but lottery.

Now, let’s watch an effective commercial:

(above taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm0RxTqj7ig. I own none of it)

Now wasn’t that great? The reason it’s successful in convincing the audience to buy Pepsi was because it had a prominent figure (Jackie Chan) and it was explicit in showing it’s superiority over the rival brand.

But do you agree with me? Which was the better, more influential commercial? Do you know of some really good commercials and why they work?

Group Frenzy

(Above taken from YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Mti_RNnF0)

 

If there’s one thing the gangsters in the video (above) agree on, it would be that groups function better than a single thug in the cold streets of Hong Kong. Why then? COM101 explains this phenomenon as Group Synergy, where the many people operate better than the individual. Achieving this, however, may prove difficult, as problems such as Group Dialectics, and Groupthink may impede.

 

Firstly, Group Dialectics explains that individual needs might come in the way of group needs. The self-seeking interests of the individual may cause disfunction of the group. As an individual uses a constant evaluation of his possible rewards in a group, there may come a point in time where the person sees little benefit in that group and, as a result, call it quits. Thus rewards may be a means to instill commitment and allegiance in a member of a group. In the movie, that Laughing character was being chased for his life frequently. Of course, with what little benefit (maybe even none) left, he wasn’t planning to stay in the gang for long.

 

Secondly, Groupthink may be a problem for a group too. It refers to the uncritical agreeing over matters just so to avoid disunity in a group. Take gangs for example. When the boss makes a silly idea, would you dare defy? Would you say, “boss, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard! You need to…”. Naturally, the sentence wouldn’t see an end to it. In gangs, you’d be swimming with the fishes or under soil for disagreeing with the boss. Group harmony, if you will, is priority.

 

So to prevent such problems, groups must frequently engage in effective group interactions and monitor for symptoms of Groupthink, such as shared stereotypes and collective rationalisation. That said, it would seem almost inevitable that gangs would collapse due to insurmountable levels of miscommunication. Yet such is not the case. Could you come up with a plausible explanation for this?

love is in the air

Well now, wasn’t that video sweet? Sadly, we’re about to suffocate the concept of ‘love‘ by applying principles of Communications to it. While the video expounded on a boy-meets-girl logic, Relational formation & development suggests that ‘love’ is ignited by a series of underlying principles. I thought the notion of Relational formation & development that I studied in COM101 was rather inaccurate, maybe even lacking in depth. So I’d like to hear about what you think of the theories regarding Relational formation & development, listed below.    

1. Physical appearance – Suggests that physical appearance exerts consistent positive impacts during the formation of the relationship, and is most impactful in the early stages of relationship. The impact diminishes over time. The attractiveness of a person is influenced by cultural norms and society. This aspect is like how Tom (the guy in the video) gawked at Summer (the girl) in the lift. 
2. Similarity – The tendency to form relationships with those similar to you (e.g. beliefs, values, activities). Suggests that in forming such relationships, risks and uncertainty are diminished. Kind of how Summer liked the same music as Tom (in the lift).
3. Dissimilarities/Complementaries – Tendency to form relationship with those different from you. The idea is that such people function better together than seperately. As you can well guess by now, this is really flawed and highly inaccurate…
4. Exchange – Form relationship based on cost & reward (what you can gain). This really ticked me. It made love seem a game.
5. Proximity - Form relationship with people around you. The idea is that there’s greater opportunity to interact with those that are closer (in distance). In the movie (above), Tom worked in the same firm as Summer, so perhaps this notion was reinforced in the show?
6. Reciprocity & Liking -  Easy, if she likes you, you like her too. Not quite the case in the movie though, yet Tom was all out for her. Does that mean this theory is inaccurate then?
7. Competency - This means that if he’s more competent, she’ll like him more. This irked me as much as the Exchange concept.
8. Filtering Theory – Great. Now love is further dissected into 4 filters that people use to ‘screen’ potential mates: (1) sociological cues, which is akin to Proximity theory. (2) Pre-interactional cues, which looks at the physical attributions of the person. (3) Interactional cues, which looks at whether is it a rewarding relationship. (4) Cognitive cues, which looks into similarities of the person.

Well that sums it up. I’m pretty sure some of these theories are flawed. I’d like to hear what you think on this dissection of ‘love’, and how much you agree to it.

You say best when you say nothing at all

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25092009/63/adebayor-won-t-change-goal-celebration.html

(Above picture adapted from http://worldsport.blogs.cnn.com/category/world-sport-blog/football/ (left) and http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/incoming/article158515.ece/BINARY/gallery-large/Arsenal+fans+react+to+Emmanuel+Adebayor%27s+celebration.jpg (right))

 

This has to be the most relevant piece of news that encompasses what was taught in COM101 this week  – Nonverbal communication. 

In Brief:

The soccer player featured above is Adebayor, a former Arsenal player. He recently joined another club, Manchester City, and left behind a bitter resentment amongst the Arsenal fans that felt betrayed by his departure. The picture shown above was taken a few weeks back during a football match (Arsenal VS Manhester City), where he taunted the Arsenal fans after he scored a goal against his former club. As one can well guess, it sparked an outrage as the Arsenal fans yelled and jeered at him. One fan even threw a chair at him (I’m not making this up. The picture above shows).

COM101 Logic:

Well now, let’s scrutinize this incident with COM101 principles shall we? In the news article (Link’s above), Adebayor emphasised how his goal celebration was an ‘emotional’ one. He is, in fact, very much right. One major aspect of nonverbal communication is that it communicates emotions very well. What Adebayor didn’t figure out perhaps, was that nonverbal communication is receiver-oriented. That means, even though he might have had good intentions, what mattered was how the Arsenal fans deemed it to be. To the fans, it was a rude, taunting gesture, stoked more so since Adebayor ran the whole pitch just to provoke them.   

 

 There are different types of nonverbal communication too. In Adebayor’s case, he was mostly using kinesics, which is body language. With his arms opened wide, and a gleeful smile on his face, you could suppose he was communicating to the Arsenal fans: “Look! I’m terrific! It’s your loss I’m no longer in Arsenal!”

The other type is  chronemics, which is the context in regards to time. This gesture Adebayor made was right after he scored the goal against Arsenal which, in context, probably indicated he had a personal feud with Arsenal.

 

So there! A careful examination of Adebayor done. However, there are other types of nonverbal communication, 6 more, to be exact. They are:

(1) Paralinguistics (The vocal things that aren’t words. e.g. crying, silences, pauses)

(2) Objects/Artifects (Objects that conveys message. e.g. tissue pack that ’chops’ seats, tattoos)

(3) Oculesics (Your eyes. e.g. ‘rolling’ of eyes)

(4) Haptics (Touch. e.g. placing your hand on someone’s back as a friendly gesture)

(5) Proxemics (Space & distance. e.g. when you shun someone, you distance yourself from him)

(6) Physical appearance (e.g dress, hairstlye)

So what do you think of Adebayor’s diplay of emotion? And while your nonverbal communication may not be as drastic as his, what forms/types of nonverbal communication do you display most often? You may be surprised, even sitting cross-legged may mean something! (e.g. tense). So please share, especially the funny/weird ones!

Fox for thought

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_430645.html

 

I had such a hard time trying to find a less provocative image of Megan Fox. But I guess that’s who she is – a sex symbol in the movie industry. That said, I thought this would be the opportune moment to apply some Communication principle of ‘perception’ on her. Oh yes, it can be done.

 

 My Com101 class taught me that communication and behaviour are based on our perception rather than on reality. That is interesting, because Megan Fox’s Transformers crew mocked her as ‘dumb’ and ‘ungracious’ (Link’s above). How did they come to that?

 

According to Seiler and Beall, ‘perception’ is the process of selecting, organising, and interpreting information. Let us examine these aspects individually and come to a reason why the crews thought of her as ‘dumb’ and ‘ungracious’. 

 

First, selection. It is a cognitive process that is based on the contrast and intensity of the stimuli. Need I say more? Megan Fox was a strikingly pretty dame in a mundane studio. Of course the crew would take notice of her. Even if you place her in a room of models, she’ll probably stick out like a sore thumb. To substantiate, look at the picture to the right. Yup, that’s what I thought.

 

Secondly, organisation. This, I reckon, was where the crews become thwarted in thought. Cognitive schemata influence a person’s organisation of information. It is the mental framework. Prototypes, which are idealised representations of people, are formed in the cognitive schemata. Perhaps, the crew stereotyped that pretty ladies like Fox are all looks and no smarts, or a bimbo if you will. Their prototype of a pretty woman therefore, is that pretty equates to dumb. Thus Fox falls into their ‘bimbo’ category.

 

Finally, interpretation. This is simple. The crew saw pretty Fox, organised her into the ‘bimbo’ category, and interpreted that whatever she does or says would be utter dumbness. Do note that one’s interpretation is heavily subjected to personal experience too, so maybe previous ‘diva’/bimbo experiences from other celebrities caused the crew to have such bias interpretations of Fox.     

 

So there you go! In merging the 3 aforementioned processes, we now have the crew’s perception. We thus gain a probable insight as to how the crew came to perceive Fox as ‘dumb’. So far, we only reasoned out the ‘dumb’ part. What about ‘ungracious’? Could you figure out a reason for that? That said, hopefully we can learn to better appreciate that perception is, indeed, a very complex thing after all.  

 

 

 

Bizarre Case

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20090907/tap-462-coroners-hearing-teen-suicide-pa-231650b.html

 

(The above are taken from Yahoo. I own none of them. Link’s on top.)

 

                Well, this was odd news. Two boys committed suicide on the misconstrued idea that they were able to return back to life with extraordinary powers. What made this even odder was that it occurred in Singapore, a country not known for such curious behaviour.

What instigated such bizarre thoughts? Was it video games? Or cartoons? Though unspecified, it may very well be so, given the allure of games nowadays to the youth. Whatever the cause, it actually motivated eight youths to participate in this gutting foolishness.  Five of them chickened out and ran after witnessing two of their friends fall off, while another backed out earlier on.

It was intriguing how the friends could collude to such plans. Using what I’ve learnt in Communication class, I’d say the leader of the group must have used a lot of Ethos (character appeal) and Pathos (emotional appeal) modes, since Logos (logic) cannot be used as his ideas weren’t the least bit logical. The styles the leader used in conveying his message would have likely been the plain and vigorous styles (character and emotional emphasis). 

The friends that followed suit to the ridiculous act were probably subjected heavily to Francis Bacon’s “idols of the tribe”. Perhaps they were heavily influenced by the “idols of the Theatre”, which suggests that fallacies occur when we accept fashionable ideas uncritically. Probably some of them were made convinced upon seeing how others were very supportive of the idea of returning back to life with extraordinary powers.  

                But what was going through their minds? Was fiction, or virtual-reality, so convincing that they became bent on suicide?  Where were their other friends? Their schoolmates? Wasn’t there anyone that could’ve detected some telltale signs of abnormal behaviour or incoherent speech? While the media may have overlooked these areas, we should perhaps look into these issues. There could have been some form of miscommunication between peers that resulted in this awful incident that may have been possible to prevent.