Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
This series of Quick Looks builds out from a central hub; a model that lays out the elements and interactions that comprise an effective transactional ...
Typology: Exams
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Belinda Bragg, Ph.D.; NSI
Skye Cooley, Ph.D.; Oklahoma State University
Asya Cooley, Ph.D.; Oklahoma State University
Robert Hinck, Ph.D.; Monmouth College
Sara Kitsch, Ph.D.; Monmouth College
POC: Belinda Bragg, Ph.D.; [email protected]
1
Scope and Intent
The SMA IIJO effort assesses the ways in which the Air Force (and by extension the Joint Force) can most effectively consider and integrate information into its activities to influence attitudes and behaviors across the competition-conflict continuum. Whether intentional or unintentional, every action or inaction, communicates a message (i.e., we cannot not communicate). Therefore, it is important to include communication as a first-order concern in planning and operations rather than an as afterthought. As the Joint Concept for Operating in the Information Environment (JCOIE) recognizes, “The future Joint Force will need to transition to a model that helps it visualize how audiences interpret information to facilitate effective and meaningful communication” (JCOIE, 2018).
The challenge of effectively using and communicating information is one that faces all individuals, groups and organizations. There is a broad body of research across multiple disciplines that addresses the issues faced by the Air Force and Joint Force. This Quick Look series mines that literature and identifies the theories, findings and applications that can provide a foundation for Joint Force efforts to effectively integrate information and influence into its activities across the competition-conflict continuum.
Series Structure
This series of Quick Looks builds out from a central hub; a model that lays out the elements and interactions that comprise an effective transactional communication process, and describes how internal and external influences can distort that process, causing miscommunication and misperception. Building from this, we have identified specific topics that bear most directly on the challenge facing the Joint Forces, and provided a deeper dive into these in a dedicated Quick Look. Figure A provides a visual of that coverage, and also illustrates how, through their connection to the central hub, each, while a stand-alone piece, both informs and is informed by the others. Figure A: Structure of IIJO Quick Look Series
3
message, which is then transmitted through one or more channels to another actor, B, who decodes that message and sends a response that is in turn decoded by A.
Encoding is the process of turning thoughts into communication (words or actions), anddecoding is the process of turning communication into thoughts (Henderson, 2004; Bankovic, 2013; Grimes & Roch, 2018).
In these processes, the actors are not solely “senders” or “receivers,” but “communicators” (Barnlund, 2008). For example, when bargaining for a car, you may send a verbal message about how much you are willing to pay while also simultaneously receiving a non-verbal message from the salesperson about whether they are satisfied with your offer.
Transmission and response involve the distribution of an encoded message through one or more channels. In this context, the term channel refers to the system or method (e.g., radio frequency, newspaper, social media platform) through which a message is sent. An actor’s choice of channel can affect the speed of transmission, as well as the likelihood that the message will be transmitted without distortion. Choice of channel can also determine whether a message is received at all. If the intended audience for a message cannot, or does not, access the chosen channel, the message will not be received, regardless of how effective the transmission process is. For example, attempts to reach audiences through social media platforms assume that the audience is attentive to the specific platform chosen and that audience
(^2) For further discussion, see companion IIJO Quick Looks, “Understanding Mass Self Communication” and “Communicative Power in a Globalized “Network Society.”
members have access to the internet. In the current IE, channels of communication are increasingly diverse and fragmented, making the identification of the most effective channel increasingly challenging.^2
As with most models of human behavior, the core communication process can be modeled fairly simply if we isolate it from the influences of individual-level factors (i.e., actors’ perception) and environmental factors, viz., a modeled operating environment (OE). However, the reality of how we communicate to effectively inform, influence, and persuade is profoundly influenced by the information environment (IE) and the wider OE. Moreover, our understanding of the IE and OE is in turn influenced by our own perceptions. The core communication process thus assumes that communication is both ongoing and continuously changing. These changes are a function of the communication process itself and reflect the continually evolving environment in which that communication is taking place.
Internal influences on Core Communication Process Every individual’s response to his or her environment is mediated through that person’s unique physiology, cognition, and experiences. As such, each one of us lives in a reality that is, to varying degrees, unique. In most instances, we share common understandings with others regarding the conceptualization of what event, person, or object we are mutually experiencing (e.g., a four-legged furry creature with a wagging tail and expressive eyebrows = dog). However,
4
we can differ on the characteristics attributed to an object–that is, our perception and evaluation of an event, person, or object can vary dramatically depending on experiences and personal exposure (e.g., a dog seen as “man’s best friend” vs. “dangerous animal”). In foreign policy, disparities in how actors perceive events or other actors can have profound implications. Disparities in perception can create misunderstanding and miscalculations that lead to conflict escalation or a failure to recognize and respond adequately to threats.
The Joint Concept for Operations in the Information Environment (JCOIE) employs the notion of worldview to help explain why an actor’s perceptions of a situation or entity can vary, thus accounting for this critical factor for understanding the IE. The JCOIE defines worldview as a:
A mental model of reality—a framework of ideas and attitudes. The beliefs, values, and behaviors of a culture stem directly from its worldview. An observer’s worldview frames the informational aspects of physical and socio-cultural activities to assign meaning. (JCOIE, 2018)
The idea of worldview is closely related to the more general concept of schema used across the social sciences. A schema is a pattern of thought or behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationships among them (DiMaggio, 1997). Schemas have been incorporated in various ways in communication models,^3 primarily as an influence on message
(^3) A more detailed discussion of this literature is provided in an earlier Quick Look, “The Development of Communication Models”.
encoding and decoding (Schramm, 1954; Fiske, 1990; van Ruler, 2018). Given their importance in organizing interpretation, thought, and behavior, schemas play a key role in understanding how communication can go awry (i.e., how perceptual interpretations of the IE become confused between parties). It is important to remember, however, that effective communication does not imply agreement between actors. Furthermore, while effective communication enables actors to clearly signal their intentions at multiple stages of escalation, it cannot prevent conflict if one or more actors perceive their interests are best protected or advanced through conflict.
Schemas Individuals employ schemas to structure their knowledge of the environment into recognizable patterns over time as small units of information combine to make more meaningful complexes of information (Jones, 2016). Schemas thus influence people’s interpretations and help them direct their attention, structure their memories, and, consequently, make sense of events (Brewer & Nakamura, 1984; Hastie, 1981; Taylor & Crocker, 1981). These stories we tell ourselves set the expectations for how we believe others are communicating (performing their role). Of particular relevance to the foreign policy context, they also create structured responses for actors in conflict with each other.
Schemas organize knowledge and guide our cognitive processes, including how we make predictions and set expectations for the behaviors of others (DiMaggio, 1997). We accept new information more readily when we can fit it within an existing schema—that is, when we can
6
(e.g., expected and appropriate behavior in a work environment). Social schemas can guide how future social cues are processed (Crick & Dodge, 1994).
learned to follow given a certain sequence of events; in effect, these are standard operating procedures (Zacks and Tversky 2001).
Looking at this list, the connection to the concept of worldview discussed in the JCOIE becomes clear: A worldview can be thought of as a set of schemas. This worldview constitutes a map and guidebook that helps an individual navigate his or her environment and determine the appropriate response to the actors and events he or she encounters.
Schemas and Cognitive Bias^4 While schemas are critical to our ability to navigate and interpret our environment, they can hardwire biases into our thinking and communication. These cognitive biases are continuously invoked to varying degrees as we process information. They have a multitude of effects on our understanding of the world, and thus the overall effectiveness of our communication. The fixedness or flexibility of preconceptions held about other actors (person schemas), our own view of self (self-schema) as well as of the world and its ordering (social schema; event schema) are all factors that increase the likelihood of bias in message encoding or decoding (Polansky & Rieger, 2020).
(^4) For a detailed discussion of cognitive bias, see companion IIJO Quick Look, “Cognitive Biases: Causes, Effects, and Implications for Effective Messaging”
In communication studies and information theory, noise refers to any factor that interferes with the transmission of a message or the decoding of the intended meaning in the mind of the receiver (McCroskey, 2018). As such, noise reduces the effectiveness of communication and increases the likelihood of misperception and miscommunication. Some sources of noise are internal to the communication process. They are created by the communicators themselves, and in many instances are a consequence of actor schemas.
Physical and Psychological Noise Physiological noise is distraction caused by factors that affect an actor’s physiology; altering how they feel and think (e.g., hunger, fatigue, pain, or medication) or conditions that impact how they communicate, such as difficult speech patterns or hearing problems (Wood, 2010). This type of interference can influence how accurately an actor may decode a message, as well as whether he or she receives it at all.
The term psychological noise is used to refer to internal factors that affect how people communicate with and interpret others. These include emotions, mental health pathologies, pre-existing ideas, and preoccupations. For instance, if an actor is preoccupied with a problem, they may be inattentive. Likewise, prejudice and defensive feelings can interfere with effective encoding and decoding of communication (Wood, 2010).
7
Semantic Noise Semantic noise is created when differences in language, understanding, or terminology exist between communicators (Jones, 2016). Lacking a shared language, or one or more actors needing to speak in their second language, is the clearest example of internally generated semantic noise (McDaniel et al., 2009). However, even between participants who share a common language, use of jargon or unnecessarily technical or complex language will generate noise (Wood, 2010). In either case, semantic noise increases the likelihood that message encoding or decoding will be distorted.
Internal Triggers of Cognitive Bias Not all forms of cognitive bias stem from the influence of schemas on information processing (encoding and decoding). Physical or psychological noise can contribute to heuristic- based processing^5 (e.g., rule of thumb), making cognitive biases more likely to occur in either encoding or decoding (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Gilbert et al., 1988; Peer & Gamliel, 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Distractions, strong emotions, limited cognitive resources, mental and physical fatigue are all factors that can increase the likelihood of bias in message encoding or decoding (Polansky & Rieger, 2020).
(^5) Heuristics are a problem-solving method that uses shortcuts to produce good-enough solutions given a limited time frame or deadline. For more discussion of cognitive bias and heuristic-based processing, see companion IIJO Quick
Look, “Cognitive Biases: Causes, Effects, and Implications for Effective Messaging”
9
assimilated or accommodated into A’s existing schema(s). If this new information changes A’s schema related to B or the issue on which A and B are communicating, it will alter A’s communication process with B. The same process can be playing out with B as it communicates with C and D. All communication processes A and B are involved in are interdependent in this way and may be distorted or disputed by one another.
These other communication processes also occupy some of A and B’s attention. When these other processes are unrelated to the core communication process, the likelihood that a message between the two will be either delayed in receipt and decoding or missed altogether increases. However, if these other communication processes are related to the core communication process, they provide the opportunity for increasing the effectiveness of that core process by aligning other actors behind a similar message.^6 Situations where communication processes overlap also create challenges; increased complexity makes misperception and miscommunication more likely as actors are faced with more information from often divergent and contradictory sources.
Socio-political Environment Influences
An actor’s schemas are bounded by specific socio-cultural guardrails (i.e.: religion, politics, philosophy), and socio-cultural narratives. Events that challenge these, especially those that change the status quo balance between competing narratives, create uncertainty and thus insecurity (Mitzen, 2006). For example, for the US and the West, the Baltic states’ entry into
(^6) For further discussion, see companion IIJO Quick Look, “Communicative Power in a Globalized “Network Society.”
NATO and the eastern expansion of the EU fitted their shared schema of global peace and stability through Western-led institution-building. It connected to a very different schema for Russia however, that of the West’s desire to destroy Russia. It was thus decoded by the Russian government, and communicated to their population as an existential threat to its sovereignty and culture.
World events such as natural disasters (earthquakes, droughts, floods, pandemics) and economic crises can also alter the messages states try to communicate and the manner in which messages, whether intentionally sent or not, are interpreted. An essential component of making information a first-order concern in operations is an assessment and awareness of the broader socio-political context in which communication is occurring.
External Triggers of Cognitive Bias^7 Certain features of the information environment may also contribute to the heuristic-based processing that makes cognitive biases more likely to occur. Too much information, conflicting information coming in from the broader environment, or the recognition that there is relevant information that we lack (known unknowns) can all trigger cognitive biases that distort information encoding or decoding, as can the perception that one’s self or group is under threat (Polansky & Rieger 2020).
(^7) For a detailed discussion of cognitive bias, see companion IIJO Quick Look, “Cognitive Biases: Causes, Effects, and Implications for Effective Messaging”
1 0
Communicating Effectively in the IE
As we probably all know from personal experience, attempting to inform, influence, or persuade the attitudes or behaviors of another individual is a complex and contingent endeavor. An understanding of the components of the communication process and the internal and external factors that can influence the receipt
and interpretation of messages provides a model for developing effective communication. While applying this model requires considerable investment in time, resources and expertise, the principle on which it can then be built out for any particular context is simple: Know your audience, know yourself.
1 2
Salkind, N. J., & Rasmussen, K. (Eds.). (2008). Encyclopedia of educational psychology. Sage Publications. Schmitz, A. (2012). A Primer on communication studies. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/a- primer-on-communication-studies/ Schramm, W. (1954). How Communication Works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Simon, D., Grimes, M., & Roch, S. (2018). Communication for Business Professionals. Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. Tory Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 89–134). Erlbaum. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication Theory: An Underrated Pillar on which Strategic Communication Rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12 (4), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018. Wood, Julia T. (2010). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. Sixth Edition. Wadsworth Zacks, J.M. & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological bulletin , 127(1) 3.
