Download Running head: COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF

1
Running head: COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
Communication Theory Investigation of Constructivism
Kenneth Stryker
Queens University of Charlotte
2
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
Jesse Delia’s theory of constructivism is one that “seeks to explain individual differences
in people’s ability to communicate skillfully in social situations” (Griffin, p. 98). In a nutshell,
constructivism examines people’s ability to do so through perspective taking, the creation of
interpersonal constructs, persuasive adaptation, and many more facets through a mostly
interpersonal lens. In this paper, I will be further explaining the main ideas of constructivism,
while applying it to real life situations. I will also examine some of its critiques and assumptions,
as well as its addition to the studies of interpersonal communication, along with an ethical
consideration later on.
This theory is slightly more objective than interpretive, and I believe that is mainly due
to the fact that it focuses mostly on human behavior, though it does so in a very personalized
manner. It places a large emphasis on the cognitive complexity of people, and the correlation
between a high cognitive complexity, and advanced social perception and interpersonal skills.
Constructivism is contextualized within the studies of interpersonal communication
through research into the main assumption that people make sense of the world through these
systems of personal constructs they create for themselves, which are often based off of societal
norms and how the individual was raised (Nicotera, p. 52). Basically, these interpersonal, or
social constructs, are “cognitive templates” which are essentially used by people to bring order
to their own personal perceptions. The reason this theory fits so well with the study of
interpersonal communication is because it examines and helps to explain the key questions of
why people perceive each other differently and why some people are apparently better at
social perception skills; things like identification, audience awareness, anticipation, and person-
3
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
centered messages, and how they do so, as well as what causes it. Constructivism examines the
extremely detailed cognitive side of interpersonal communication in a way that absolutely adds
to its studies immensely.
I’ve already examined the main ideas of constructivism, but what about how it’s actually
been used in academics? There is a special questionnaire, known as the role category
questionnaire, which actually scores people’s results, and determines your cognitive complexity
score, so to speak. This scoring process is known as differentiation. The higher a person’s score,
the more cognitively complex that person is. This RCQ has been used in many educational and
psychological environments in order to measure the supposed cognitive complexity of those
involved. It basically requires the participant to write as many behavioral and personality
indicators they can think of regarding a person they like and dislike, then they add up all the
indicators to determine their score. Delia’s colleague Burleson interprets any score higher than
25 to indicate high cognitive complexity.
Another academic field in which constructivism was studied was during an experiment
done by Ruth Ann Clark and Delia, where schoolchildren from second to ninth grade were
studied in order to determine a link between person-centered messages and cognitive
complexity. It focused on their ability to adapt persuasive messages to different target listeners.
In the end, the results showed that the quality of messages increased with age, but not in every
case. Those that showed similar results as their older classmates were shown to be more
cognitive complex with their ability to encode person-centered messages and tailor them to the
individual (Griffin, p. 101).
4
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
Person-centered messages can have a huge impact on someone, depending on how
cognitively complex the deliverer is. I have a practical relationship example to help to make
sense of constructivism. Let’s say two people, Mike and Eric, are best friends. Mike is very
cognitively complex (he scored a 30 on the RCQ), while Eric isn’t so much (he scored a 9). Mike
has another friend, John, who isn’t as good a friend as Eric, but he’s still a friend. John is also
very cognitively complex. Mike has soccer tryouts, and ends up getting cut from the team. He is
devastated, and Eric feels horrible for him. He offers his condolences, but being that he is not
very cognitively complex, he does so in a not-so-comforting way, and Mike is even more hurt at
his best friend’s apparent lack of care. John sees Mike in class the next day, and gives him some
very comforting words of encouragement, and Mike is much happier as a result. The confusion
here comes with the different levels of cognitive complexity. In this example, Eric really does
care a lot about Mike’s feelings, more than John does, but he has a harder time showing it
because of his lack of social perception skills, while John isn’t nearly as close to Mike, but is able
to take his perspective, and offer him sincere words of encouragement. This example should
help to make sense of constructivism when it comes to relationships and cognitive complexity.
There are many things to be said about constructivism, both good and bad. For one, it
offers a unique view into the realm of cognition and the explanation behind individual’s abilities
to pick up subtle differences in people, take their perspectives, their social perception skills, etc.
I’ve already explained most of its general uses and ideas, so what are its limitations? For one,
there is quite a bit of skepticism about the RCQ. Many critics complain that it simply tests how
wordy people are, not how cognitively complex they are. The test doesn’t measure the quality
of each chosen indicator word; it only measures the quantity. Also, so far, it’s the only gauge of
5
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
cognitive complexity that exists. As Griffin explains, it’s difficult to accept the fact that a single
number reflects the extremely complex and infinite structure of our mental (Griffin, p. 108).
This leads me to a few questions I’ve posed as a result of these limitations of the RCQ. For one,
how do we determine what should count as an indicator? Is there a specific, legitimate scale to
follow when determining a score? Will there ever be a more accurate and legitimate way of
measuring cognitive complexity? Can someone who scores very low on the RCQ ever have the
same capacity for cognitive complexity as someone who score higher? Can cognitive complexity
be learned or are we inherently born with it? Maybe one day, these questions can be
answered.
As with most theories, there is an issue of ethics involved. Constructivism no doubt has
its ethical dilemmas. The one I will focus on regards the notion that children raised in privilege
are at an advantage when it comes to cognitive complexity. The ethical issue that arises as a
result of this notion is what is being done, or I should say not being done, to give disadvantaged
children a similar advantage. The fact that advocates of this theory are well aware of this, but
are not acting on it brings up a very unethical argument that favors these disadvantaged
children. Burleson speaks of his disproval in his work “Constructivism”, “We researchers now
know a lot about cognitive complexity and advanced social perception and communication
skills, but thus far there have been few efforts to translate what we know into proven programs
that effectively enhance these skills” (Burleson, p. 124). Though Burleson acknowledges the
issue, it does the disadvantaged children no good until action is actually taken.
6
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
In conclusion, let’s look back at the two main issues of constructivism in this paper.
There’s the issue with the RCQ, but why should we care about this? Well for one, for any
theorist studying constructivism, depth is certainly lacking in this test of cognitive complexity. I
feel as though there should be a more modern test, one that doesn’t base its results off of a
very questionable set of responses. I believe this RCQ ultimately causes more misleading data
than it does accurate results, and constructivism would do well with a change in tests.
As for the other issue, the disadvantaged children, this one is much more apparent in its
need to be addressed. Cognitive complexity is the key to interpersonal effectiveness (Griffin, p.
108). Children who are raised without access to this “key” are missing out on so many
opportunities in their future that are not so apparent at first glance. When a child grows up
lacking interpersonal communication skills, along with social perception skills and personcentered messaging skills, they are at an extreme disadvantage already. Children are the future,
and we can’t just rely on the privileged ones to take over. There needs to be a diversity of
backgrounds and upbringings within the workforce. I believe this issue is one of the utmost
importance, and instead of just talking about it, people need to help to make a change.
7
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
Review of related literature:
The first cited source by Burleson provided me with adequate information regarding his
views on the issue of disadvantaged children and lack of cognitive complexity in their
upbringing. Also, his work with Delia on the RCQ section in the text book added a lot to my
paper as well. I had trouble finding his full book online, but as for his reference from the text
book, I found that very easily and was able to use it to my advantage.
The work by Clark and Delia was extremely useful for my paper, as it added a fantastic
real world application in the educational field. Their experiment with the second through ninthgraders and cognitive complexity proved to be a key part of my educational application.
Nicotera provided a very small, yet very key part of my paper. She is responsible not
only for attributing to a very important section of my paper, but also for how I ended up
structuring it as well. Her work proved to make up for in content what it lacked in length.
8
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
Burleson, B. R. (2006). Constructivism: a general theory of communication skill. Retrieved from
http://www.wikiway.net/images/a/a7/Whaley_%26_Samter_Constructivism_ChapterPage_Proofs.pdf
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. (1977). Cognitive complexity, social perspective-taking, and functional
persuasive skills in second-to-ninth-grade students. Human Communication Research, 3.
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory. Chapter 8: Constructivism. New York,
McGraw- Hill.
Nicotera, A. M. (1995). The constructivist theory of delia, clark, and associates. Watershed
Research Traditions in Human Communication Theory. Albany, New York.
9
COMMUNICATION THEORY INVESTIGATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM