SELECT AN EDITION:
9th EDITION   10th EDITION   11th EDITION
A First Look at Communication Theory Reveal main menu
 

The screen on this device is not wide enough to display Theory Resources. Try rotating the device to landscape orientation to see if more options become available.

Resources available to all users:

  • Text Comparison—theories covered in A First Look and ten other textbooks
  • Theory Overview—abstract of each chapter
  • Self-Help Quizzes—for student preparation
  • Chapter Outlines
  • Key Names—important names and terms in each chapter
  • Conversation Videos—interviews with theorists
  • Application Logs—student application of theories
  • Essay Questions—for student prepatation
  • Suggested Movie Clips—tie-in movie scenese to theories
  • Links—web resources related to each chapter
  • Primary Sources—for each theory with full chapter coverage
  • Further Resources—bibliographic and other suggestions
  • Changes—for each theory, since the previous edition
  • Theory Archive—PDF copies from the last edition in which a theory appeared

Resources available only to registered instructors who are logged in:

  • Discussion Suggestions
  • Exercises & Activities
  • PowerPoint® presentations you can use
  • Short Answer Quizzes—suggested questions and answers

Information for Instructors. Read more


Resources
by Type


Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more




 CHAPTER OUTLINES











New to Theory Resources?
Find out more in this
short video overview (3:01).

CHANGE TO View by Theory
Theory Outlines
11th Edition

From the Instructors Manual

List mode: Normal (click on theory name to show detail) | Show All details | Clear details

Chapter 21—Symbolic Convergence Theory

Close

  1. Central explanatory principle of SCT: sharing group fantasies creates symbolic convergence.
  1. Similar to Bales, Bormann and his team of colleagues observed that group members often dramatized events happening outside the group, things that took place at previous meetings, or what might possibly occur among them in the future.
  2. When the drama was enhanced in this way, members developed a common group consciousness and drew closer together.
  1. Dramatizing messages: Creative interpretations of there-and-then.
  1. According to SCT, conversations about things outside of what’s going on right now can often serve the group well.
  2. Dramatizing messages contain imaginative language that describes events occurring somewhere else or at some other time than the here/now.
  3. The dramatizing message must paint a picture or call to mind an image.
  4. A vivid message is dramatizing if it either describes something outside the group or portrays an event that has happened within the group in the past or might happen to the group in the future.
  5. Dramatizing messages are creative interpretations that help the speaker, and sometimes the listener, make sense of a confusing situation or bring clarity to an uncertain future.
  1. Fantasy chain reactions: Unpredictable symbolic explosions.
  1. Bormann uses fantasy for dramatizing messages that are enthusiastically embraced by the whole group.
  2. Most dramatizing messages don’t get that kind of reaction.
  3. Some dramatizing messages cause a symbolic explosion in the form of a chain reaction in which members join in until the entire group comes alive.
  4. A fantasy chain occurs when there is a common response to the dramatizing message.
  5. Fantasy chains are hard to predict, but when they occur, they are hard to control and a group will often converge around a fantasy theme.
  1. Fantasy themes: Content, motives, cues, types.
  1. A fantasy theme is the content of the dramatizing message that sparks a fantasy chain.
  2. A fantasy theme is the basic unit of analysis for SCT.
  3. Bormann suggested that group members’ meanings, emotions, motives, and actions are apparent in their fantasy themes.
  4. Many fantasy themes are indexed by a symbolic cue.
  5. A symbolic cue is an “agreed upon trigger that sets off the group members to respond as they did when they first shared the fantasy” such as a code word, gesture, or inside joke.
  6. Clusters of related fantasy themes sometimes surface repeatedly in different groups and are labeled with a fantasy type.
  1. Symbolic convergence: Group consciousness and often cohesiveness.
  1. Symbolic convergence results from sharing group fantasies.
  1. Symbolic convergence is the way in which two or more private symbol worlds incline toward each other, come more closely together, or even overlap.
  2. Symbolic convergence causes group members to develop a unique group consciousness.
  3. Bormann suggested that it is important for members to memorialize their group consciousness with a name and recorded history that recalls moments when fantasies chained out.
  1. Symbolic convergence usually, but not always, results in heightened group cohesiveness.
  1. Rhetorical vision: A composite drama shared by a rhetorical community.
  1. Fantasies that begin in small groups often are worked into public speeches, become picked up by mass media and ‘spread out across larger publics.’
  1. Rhetorical vision refers to a composite drama that catches up large groups of people into a common symbolic reality.
  2. Rhetorical community is the wide ranging body of people who share a reality.
  1. Fantasy theme analysis discovers fantasy themes and rhetorical visions that have already been created.
  2. Fantasy theme analysis is a specific type of rhetorical criticism that’s built on two basic assumptions
  1. People create their social reality.
  2. People’s meanings, motives, and emotions can be seen in their rhetoric.
  3. Four features should be present in the shared fantasies: characters, plot lines, scene, and sanctioning agent.
  1. Examples of such rhetorical visions can be seen in McCabe’s work on pro-eating disorders (also known as high-risk dieters) or the impact of the “Make America Great Again” movement during the run-up to the 2016 US Presidential elections.
  1. Theory into practice: Advice to improve your college experience.
  1. Bormann offers advice on how to use SCT as it applies to a group.
  1. When the group begins to share a drama that in your opinion would contribute to a healthy culture, you should pick up the drama and feed the chain.
  2. If the fantasies are destructive, creating group paranoia or depression, cut the chain off whenever possible.
  3. To build cohesiveness, use personification to identify your group.
  4. Be sure to encourage the sharing of dramas depicting your group history.
  5. Even though a conscious rhetorical effort on your part can succeed in igniting a chain reaction, remember that the fantasy may take an unexpected turn.
  1. Most rhetorical visions embrace either a righteous vision, a social vision, or a pragmatic vision.
  1. Critique: Judging SCT as both a scientific and interpretive theory.
  1. The theory’s basic hypothesis that sharing group fantasies creates symbolic convergence is framed as a universal principle that holds for all people, in any culture, at any time, in any communication context; it typifies the objective tradition.
  2. But the methodology of determining fantasy themes, fantasy types, and rhetorical visions is rhetorical criticism—a humanistic approach that’s undeniably interpretive.
  3. SCT holds up well against both the criteria for an objective theory and an interpretive theory.
  4. Despite this success, SCT fails to meet at least two benchmarks of a good theory (one objective benchmark and one interpretive benchmark).
  1. SCT researchers adequately predict the benefits of convergence (cohesiveness) but have little success predicting when a dramatizing message will trigger a chain reaction.
  2. Without the ability to forecast when a fantasy chain reaction will occur, SCT is difficult to test and not as useful as group practitioners desire.
  3. There’s no doubt that fantasy theme analysis uncovers the values of a rhetorical community. One concern is an ideology of convergence.
  4. SCT vocabulary shows the theory’s pro-social bias, but ignores issues of power.

 


Close

You can access the Outline for a particular chapter in several ways:

  • Switch to View by Theory, then select the desired theory/chapter from the drop-down list at the top of the page. Look in the list of available resources.
  • To quickly find a theory by chapter number, use the Table of Contents and link from there. It will take you directly to the theory with available options highlighted.
  • You can also use the Theory List, which will take you directly to the theory with available options highlighted.

Back to top



Resources
by Type


Instructors can get
additional resources.
Read more




 OUTLINES


 VIDEOS


 ESSAY






New to Theory
Resources?
Find out more
in this short
video overview
(3:01).

CHANGE TO View by Theory
Theory Outlines
11th Edition

From the Instructors Manual

List mode: Normal (click on theory name to show detail) | Show All details | Clear details

Chapter 21—Symbolic Convergence Theory

Close

  1. Central explanatory principle of SCT: sharing group fantasies creates symbolic convergence.
  1. Similar to Bales, Bormann and his team of colleagues observed that group members often dramatized events happening outside the group, things that took place at previous meetings, or what might possibly occur among them in the future.
  2. When the drama was enhanced in this way, members developed a common group consciousness and drew closer together.
  1. Dramatizing messages: Creative interpretations of there-and-then.
  1. According to SCT, conversations about things outside of what’s going on right now can often serve the group well.
  2. Dramatizing messages contain imaginative language that describes events occurring somewhere else or at some other time than the here/now.
  3. The dramatizing message must paint a picture or call to mind an image.
  4. A vivid message is dramatizing if it either describes something outside the group or portrays an event that has happened within the group in the past or might happen to the group in the future.
  5. Dramatizing messages are creative interpretations that help the speaker, and sometimes the listener, make sense of a confusing situation or bring clarity to an uncertain future.
  1. Fantasy chain reactions: Unpredictable symbolic explosions.
  1. Bormann uses fantasy for dramatizing messages that are enthusiastically embraced by the whole group.
  2. Most dramatizing messages don’t get that kind of reaction.
  3. Some dramatizing messages cause a symbolic explosion in the form of a chain reaction in which members join in until the entire group comes alive.
  4. A fantasy chain occurs when there is a common response to the dramatizing message.
  5. Fantasy chains are hard to predict, but when they occur, they are hard to control and a group will often converge around a fantasy theme.
  1. Fantasy themes: Content, motives, cues, types.
  1. A fantasy theme is the content of the dramatizing message that sparks a fantasy chain.
  2. A fantasy theme is the basic unit of analysis for SCT.
  3. Bormann suggested that group members’ meanings, emotions, motives, and actions are apparent in their fantasy themes.
  4. Many fantasy themes are indexed by a symbolic cue.
  5. A symbolic cue is an “agreed upon trigger that sets off the group members to respond as they did when they first shared the fantasy” such as a code word, gesture, or inside joke.
  6. Clusters of related fantasy themes sometimes surface repeatedly in different groups and are labeled with a fantasy type.
  1. Symbolic convergence: Group consciousness and often cohesiveness.
  1. Symbolic convergence results from sharing group fantasies.
  1. Symbolic convergence is the way in which two or more private symbol worlds incline toward each other, come more closely together, or even overlap.
  2. Symbolic convergence causes group members to develop a unique group consciousness.
  3. Bormann suggested that it is important for members to memorialize their group consciousness with a name and recorded history that recalls moments when fantasies chained out.
  1. Symbolic convergence usually, but not always, results in heightened group cohesiveness.
  1. Rhetorical vision: A composite drama shared by a rhetorical community.
  1. Fantasies that begin in small groups often are worked into public speeches, become picked up by mass media and ‘spread out across larger publics.’
  1. Rhetorical vision refers to a composite drama that catches up large groups of people into a common symbolic reality.
  2. Rhetorical community is the wide ranging body of people who share a reality.
  1. Fantasy theme analysis discovers fantasy themes and rhetorical visions that have already been created.
  2. Fantasy theme analysis is a specific type of rhetorical criticism that’s built on two basic assumptions
  1. People create their social reality.
  2. People’s meanings, motives, and emotions can be seen in their rhetoric.
  3. Four features should be present in the shared fantasies: characters, plot lines, scene, and sanctioning agent.
  1. Examples of such rhetorical visions can be seen in McCabe’s work on pro-eating disorders (also known as high-risk dieters) or the impact of the “Make America Great Again” movement during the run-up to the 2016 US Presidential elections.
  1. Theory into practice: Advice to improve your college experience.
  1. Bormann offers advice on how to use SCT as it applies to a group.
  1. When the group begins to share a drama that in your opinion would contribute to a healthy culture, you should pick up the drama and feed the chain.
  2. If the fantasies are destructive, creating group paranoia or depression, cut the chain off whenever possible.
  3. To build cohesiveness, use personification to identify your group.
  4. Be sure to encourage the sharing of dramas depicting your group history.
  5. Even though a conscious rhetorical effort on your part can succeed in igniting a chain reaction, remember that the fantasy may take an unexpected turn.
  1. Most rhetorical visions embrace either a righteous vision, a social vision, or a pragmatic vision.
  1. Critique: Judging SCT as both a scientific and interpretive theory.
  1. The theory’s basic hypothesis that sharing group fantasies creates symbolic convergence is framed as a universal principle that holds for all people, in any culture, at any time, in any communication context; it typifies the objective tradition.
  2. But the methodology of determining fantasy themes, fantasy types, and rhetorical visions is rhetorical criticism—a humanistic approach that’s undeniably interpretive.
  3. SCT holds up well against both the criteria for an objective theory and an interpretive theory.
  4. Despite this success, SCT fails to meet at least two benchmarks of a good theory (one objective benchmark and one interpretive benchmark).
  1. SCT researchers adequately predict the benefits of convergence (cohesiveness) but have little success predicting when a dramatizing message will trigger a chain reaction.
  2. Without the ability to forecast when a fantasy chain reaction will occur, SCT is difficult to test and not as useful as group practitioners desire.
  3. There’s no doubt that fantasy theme analysis uncovers the values of a rhetorical community. One concern is an ideology of convergence.
  4. SCT vocabulary shows the theory’s pro-social bias, but ignores issues of power.

 


Close

You can access the Outline for a particular chapter in several ways:

  • Switch to View by Theory, then select the desired theory/chapter from the drop-down list at the top of the page. Look in the list of available resources.
  • To quickly find a theory by chapter number, use the Table of Contents and link from there. It will take you directly to the theory with available options highlighted.
  • You can also use the Theory List, which will take you directly to the theory with available options highlighted.

Back to top



 
 
 
Home  McGraw-Hill—How to get copies of A First Look  Information for Instructors  Meet the Authors
Compare Comm Theory Texts  Viewing Hints & Troubleshooting  Changes in the 11th Edition 
Contact Us  Instructor Login 
 
 

Copyright © Em Griffin 2024 | Web design by Graphic Impact