Behavioral studies, also often called social scientific research, are grounded upon the ideals of science—from the perspective (epistemology) that the universe (world) can be categorized, broken down into minute detail, and understood (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018; Merrigan & Huston, 2015). The researcher often focuses on cause and effect.
Behavioral Theory is a formal concept. In this paradigm, theory refers to a hypothesis that has been or is being tested through the rigor of scientific method. This is a deductive process—the researcher has a theory or hypothesis in mind when the study begins. The study is conducted to test whether the theory is accurate (Merrigan & Huston, 2015). These studies focus on the texture or composition of a message or communication act, testing the individual components. Therefore, the theories focus on individual aspects of communication, and combinations of those aspects. Behaviorists analyze sample data, using statistics and qualitative methods, looking for patterns that can be applied to populations. This type of research and theory is deductive in nature: the researcher starts out with a specific theory or hypothesis in mind and sets out to test that hypothesis to prove it. Behavioral research seeks generalizable knowledge: the researcher tests small groups (samples) of a population and uses the results to predict and control communication practices and human communicative behavior.
Fields in the social sciences that are related to communication studies and use communication research include psychology, management science, anthropology, education, economics, statistics, and archaeology. Communication fields rooted in behavioral studies include organizational communication, interpersonal communication, public relations, intercultural communication, and human communication studies.
Behavioral Research Models
Models or theories in this paradigm reflect social scientific frameworks, and are focused on measuring ways to predict and control behaviors. Because a primary focus is measuring factors or elements of communication, many of these models are statistical or quantitative in nature. Not all Behavioral Paradigm models are strictly quantitative, but the principles of mathematical logic and measuring communication patterns nevertheless prevails. These models apply specific theoretical precepts through standardized observation techniques. This means that studies using these models use methods and approaches that can be repeated and double-checked for accuracy by other scholars. Several of the more influential behavioral communication models are briefly described below.
Media Effects Theory or the Hypodermic Needle Model (Lasswell, 1927)
The concept of media effects "represents one of the core ideas of communication research since its inception" (Neuman & Guggenheim, 2011, p. 169). Beginning with the work of Harold Lasswell (1927, 1930, 1935, 1948), media effects is rooted in the study of propaganda messages during World War I and how they impact audiences. The theory assumed, in its early form, that audiences are generally generic and did not account for variables such as race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, lived experience, age, or religion. Further, the theory generally assumes audiences are passive, and therefore easily manipulated. Lasswell's model is sometimes called the hypodermic needle model, as Lasswell argued that audience exposure to media could impact the characteristics that audiences illustrate. The media, in a sense, can 'inject' ideological and ontological concerns into audience members.
Many scholars throughout the twentieth century, including Paul Lazarsfeld (1948) and Herta Herzog (1946, 1952) have argued against Lasswell's original concept claiming it to be too simplistic and not accounting for enough diversity in audience behavior. However, adapted versions of the theory still exist, and are currently applied more to narrowcasting and politically polarized media consumption (Pew Research Center, 2014) rather than to broadcasting and wide mass audiences.
Attribution Theory (Heider, 1944, 1958)
Attribution theory is focused on how individuals self-prescribe behaviors based on their responses to particular events and messages. Heider (1944) argued that attributions, or characteristics of a person are driven primarily by emotional responses. People have both internal and external attributions and each of these are means of drawing inferences about events and messages and then drawing conclusions from their inferences (Heider, 1944, 1958; Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018). In other words, we judge other people, events, words, and symbols through attribution.
Attribution takes place in three stages or steps: perception of the action or message, judgement of intent, and attribution of disposition (Heider, 1958; Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2018). Inherent biases within people, framed by their previous preferences and judgements, influence the attribution process. Then we communicate based on those influences, which impact how others perceive, judge, and attribute us. The resulting attributions influence our characteristics and behavior patterns in relation to our families, our personal relationships, and our organizational identities.
The Mathematical Model of Communication (Shannon, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1963)
A model often recognized as a foundational model for contemporary communication studies in this paradigm is the 1949 Mathematical Model of Communication. This model was developed by a telephone communications technician to look at how messages were transmitted through communication technologies. This model is applicable to any type of message transmission, whether or not media technologies are used.
Also sometimes referred to as the Transmission Model or Information Theory, this approach is focused on whether or not a message is successfully transmitted from a sender or source to a receiver or destination. The model looks at the possibility of uncertainty in a message, and illustrates possible points for a breakdown in intended message flow. It draws upon mathematical probability theories to determine when and where messages are most likely to reach their destination intact, what types of interference (noise) can impact the message, and highlights where the encoding and decoding processes of message transmission occur. This theory is used in multiple academic fields, including Communication Studies fields such as Mass Communication, Interpersonal Communication, and Public Communication.
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) (Giles, 1973)
Communication accommodation occurs when a message producer alters or shifts the form of their message to meet the needs of a message receiver. These needs can include things like race, ethnicity, culture, gender, experience, age, or communication style. Environmental factors can also play a role. People make accommodations to their communication processes and styles to address perceived discomfort and to avoid potential miscommunication (Giles, 1973, 2016).
There are two ways in which Communication Accommodation occurs: convergence and divergence. Convergence occurs when the speaker or sender of the message, often someone of lower social position than the receiver, reshapes the message to fit the ideal or norm. This is especially true of persons in intercultural encounters who adjust their speech style, accent, and/or content to fit the dominant viewpoint of those whose approval they seek. Divergence occurs when someone highlights or stresses aspects of their message that do not fit the ideal or normal message pattern, to illustrate the difference.
Conversation Analysis (Sacks, 1974)
In 1974 Harvey Sacks published two different research articles on the interaction between people during conversations and other interpersonal communication processes (Sacks, 1974; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). The focus of the research was on how people talk, both in terms of words and behaviors, in conversation, and what elements of the dialogue and communication behaviors influence conversational patterns. In order to study conversations, dialog, and behaviors are recorded and broken down line-by-line, a form of linguistic analysis, to reveal the overall patterns, and norms of conversational behaviors. Significantly, the process is intended to study real people having real conversations in a variety of contexts involving multiple variables and situations, implying fluidity and texture. These conversations are not fixed or stagnant and do not center around pre-assigned topics or processes.
Conversation analysis allows the researcher to analyze all aspects of a conversation: individual utterances, words, sentences, pauses, interactions, movements, body language, etc. That way, the researcher can compare the samples of their studies to existing samples and analyses, and seek to find overall patterns that help reveal patterns in conversations. These patterns can then help communication scholars determine if cultural, gendered, location-based, ethnic, and other characteristics influence conversational behavior.
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger, 1975)
Uncertainty Reduction Theory was designed to look at how communication patterns change as two individuals initiate conversation. Building on attribution theory, uncertainty reduction argues that when two strangers meet, each attempts to reduce their discomfort by getting to know the other’s expectations and communication style, therefore reducing uncertainty (Berger, 1975).
For example, when you first meet someone, let’s say meeting a new roommate, you try to figure them out. The more you think you understand the other person, the more comfortable you will become with them. You get to know the other person by asking them questions, and interpreting their answers. The theory measures verbal communication styles and patterns, nonverbal communication factors, self-disclosure mechanisms, similarity and difference factors, and networks for inverse correlations between uncertainty and shared communications. In other words, an increase in communication should result in reduced uncertainty, and vice versa.
Agenda Setting Theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972)
Agenda Setting Theory looks at the way that mass media construct narratives and goals for audiences, particularly in terms of political understandings. The theory argues that media set the agendas or priorities for the public, and this then determines political agendas. The hypothesis predicts that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between media content and the way that voters understand issues, and which issues are of key importance (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
Media providers act as the gatekeepers of knowledge, and direct the public to agendas and goals that have more to do with what media producers want than with the public’s own needs. The model functions by analyzing how media outlets prioritize news stories, and compares that with audience perceptions.
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15(2),87-109. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30029508
Giles, H. (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H. (1978). Linguistic differentiation between ethnic groups. In H. Tajfel, (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 361-393). London: Academic Press.
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2018). A first look at communication, 10th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358-374.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Herzog, H. (1952). Listener mail to the Voice of America. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16(4), 607-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/266423
Herzog, H. (1946). Radio and television: Radio—The first post-war year. Public Opinion Quarterly, 10(3), 297-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/10.3.297
Lasswell, H. (1927). Propaganda technique in the world war. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
Lasswell, H. (1930). Psychopathology and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communications in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York: Harper.
Lasswell, H. D. (1935). World politics and personal insecurity. New York: Free Press.McCombs and Shaw, 1968, 1972
Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1948). Communication research and the social psychologist. In W. Dennis (Ed.). Current trends in social psychology, (218-273). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. DOI: 10.1086/267990
Merrigan, G. & Huston, C.L. (2015). Communication research methods (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Neuman, W.R. & Guggenheim, L. (2011). The evolution of media effects theory: A six-stage model of cumulative research. Communication Theory, 21(2), 169-196. DOI: doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01381.x
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman and J.F. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the ethnography of speaking,(pp. 337–353). Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423 & 623-656, July and October.
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
