Relational Dialectics and Communication Privacy Management

2. Compare the approach to relational communication championed by Baxter and Montgomery with either social penetration theory or uncertainty reduction theory (e.g., identify an axiom). How would you assess the insights and value of each theory? Use a real-life example to support your answer.

Uncertainty reduction theory (URT) is the idea that people will try to reduce uncertainty around new people through different ways, such as verbal communication, similarity, etc. (Griffin, p. 105). Baxter and Montgomery thought of an approach to relational communication which they dubbed Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT). RDT “is about struggle between discourses, and these unceasing struggles are ‘located in the relationship between parties, produced and reproduced through the parties’ joint communicative activity’” (Griffin, p. 132). The main difference between these two theories is that URT is a more internal struggle, whereas RDT is between two people, so it is more external. 

One of the main aspects of URT is to be able to predict and explain a person’s attitudes and behaviors, and one of the main ways to be able to do that is to learn more about a person. However, some people may not want their attitudes and behaviors to be explained, which is where RDT comes in. The second tension in RDT is stability and change, or “a set of discursive struggles regarding routine versus spontaneity; traditional versus novel,” (Griffin, p. 136). The internal aspect of that tension is certainty-uncertainty. There are things that humans prefer to be certain about, such as what actions deserve a reward and which deserve punishments, but there are also those that people want to be uncertain about, such as what gifts someone will get for their birthday or other holidays. A way using URT to show this certainty-uncertainty is the third axiom, information seeking. This axiom states that “high levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior. As uncertainty levels decline, information-seeking behavior decreases” (Griffin, p. 107). Someone who prefers more uncertainty in a relationship may not have many information-seeking behaviors, whereas someone who wants absolute certainty will have more information-seeking behaviors. 

One of my childhood friends was someone who preferred absolute certainty over uncertainty. He told me about how every year, he would go through his house and find where his parents hid the Christmas presents so he would be able to find out what he received that year and wouldn’t have to wait until the day of to find out. He hated surprises, so he had many behaviors that made sure that surprises were not a thing in his family. However, his parents preferred that uncertainty, especially with gift-giving, because they loved to see how surprised their kids were when they opened presents on Christmas morning. They expressed this desire to him over and over, and eventually, he accepted this, and allowed Christmas to be the one time where he would accept surprise and uncertainty. 

Each of these theories are valuable: they each approach something different with communication, one being more internal and the other being more external, so they reveal different aspects of people. URT could not have explained my friends’ behavior, but RDT could explain it. Together, they explain much more about people than they would alone.

My elementary school in Olean, NY.

3. People become co-owners of information through different means. Explain both routes to becoming a co owner and what the implications are for one’s felt level of responsibility. Then, use a real life example to explain the internal and external tensions. 

Communication privacy management theory, or CPM, is “a privacy management system that contains three main parts,” privacy ownership, privacy control, and privacy turbulence, that together form the system of how privacy is owned, shared with others, and then when things go differently than how people may expect (Griffin, p. 145). When privacy is shared, those that know that knowledge become co-owners of the information: and there are two routes to becoming a co-owner. The first is a deliberate confidant, or someone “who sought out private information,” and the other is a reluctant confidant, who is “a co-owner of private information who did not see it nor want it” (Griffin, p. 151). 

For these two confidants, there are different levels of responsibility for that knowledge that they now possess. A deliberate confidant will feel more responsible than a reluctant confidant, because they sought out the information and wanted the information. However, if they had malicious intentions when seeking the information, they may not feel any responsibility, as the original reasons were not good. A reluctant confidant could feel responsible for the information or not feel responsible for it, depending on the situation. 

As a hobby, I watch a lot of gaming streamers on Twitch. An aspect of streaming on the platform is that viewers can donate a certain amount of money, and they can write a message attached to the donation, and they will then be shown on stream, for both the streamers and the viewers to see. Sometimes, these donations are people just venting about horrible situations that they have found themselves in, and in these cases, both the streamer and the viewers have become reluctant confidants. A lot of the time, the streamers will ignore it: the viewer is an unknown person, and they cannot be helped in this situation, they are simply trauma dumping onto a streamer. They hold no responsibility, despite being told a piece of private information.

One of the Twitch Streamers I watch.

4. Keeping in mind social information processing theory, explain how a person’s privacy can be managed online. Then, identify and explain how one specific internal or external dialectical tension (RDT) can affect boundaries that are unique to online relationships.

Social Information Processing Theory (SIP) states that “relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form interpersonal impressions of who they are” (Griffin, p. 118). When looking at this theory and one's online presence, we can see that a person entirely controls their online relationships and privacy. Each person is in charge of their own online presence, except for a few exceptions. But, they control the privacy settings of their social media accounts; they decide what gets posted online — they are in charge of their own online privacy. Their relationships will develop with this, with the other person only knowing what they allow them to see. 

The internal dialectic of expression-nonexpression, openness-closedness, can affect boundaries that are unique to online relationships (Griffin, p. 137). This tension explains that people may prefer to have more transparency or more privacy in their relationships. In online relationships, all information that you know about a person comes from what they tell the other person — in other words, it is entirely up to the individual for what the other person knows about them. They choose how open or how closed off they are. 

Boundaries are hard to break in online relationships, especially when you decide how much transparency is in the relationship and how much privacy you have. But, this raises concerns of if a person is lying to you, how would you know? Online relationships are tricky, and people need to be transparent about themselves with others, so the other person knows you are who you are saying you are.