Коммуникативное поведение человека: производство и обработка сообщений в фокусе западных исследований

  • Александр Игоревич Добранов Белорусский государственный университет, пр. Независимости, 4, 220030, г. Минск, Беларусь https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5120-9539

Аннотация

В обзоре литературы сопоставляются российский и западный взгляды на коммуникативное поведение человека. В то время как российские исследователи опираются преимущественно на лингвистику и культурологию, западные ученые используют данные коммуникативистики, медиалогии, риторики, когнитивных наук, психофизиологии, эволюционной психологии и биологии. Впервые в русскоязычном научном пространстве комплексно рассматриваются ключевые западные подходы, теории и  модели, описывающие структурные компоненты феномена производства и обработки сообщений человеком. Предлагается рабочее определение коммуникативного поведения человека, основанное на западной традиции. Обсуждается применение западных концепций в рамках фундаментальных и прикладных исследований: особое внимание уделяется вопросам повышения эффективности убеждающей и массовой коммуникации, оптимизации медиасообщений, тренировки коммуникативной компетентности. В завершение очерчиваются два теоретических пробела западной традиции и указываются способы их восполнения. 

Биография автора

Александр Игоревич Добранов, Белорусский государственный университет, пр. Независимости, 4, 220030, г. Минск, Беларусь

независимый исследователь

Литература

  1. Sternin IA. Modeli opisaniya kommunikativnogo povedeniya [Models for describing communicative behaviour]. 2nd edition. 2015. Voronezh: Garant; 52 p. Russian.
  2. Sternin IA, Kambaralieva UD. Theoretical problems of the description of communicative behaviour. Communication Studies. 2018;2:20–34. Russian. DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2018.2.20-34.
  3. Prokhorov YuE, Sternin IA. Russkie: kommunikativnoe povedenie [Russians: the communicative behavior]. Moscow: Flinta; 2006. 238 p. Co-published by the «Nauka». Russian.
  4. Korneeva AV. Communicative behavior and communicative consciousness as mechanisms of intercultural interaction. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya. 2017;15(4):78–86. Russian. DOI: 10.25205/1818-7935 2017-15-4-78-86.
  5. Pugachev IA, Yarkina LP. Training in communicative behavior as one their factors of formation of cross-cultural competence. Polylinguality and Transcultural Practices. 2013;4:23–28. Russian.
  6. Richmond VP, McCroskey JC. Human communication theory and research: traditions and models. Stacks DW, Salwen MB, editors. Integrated approach to communication theory and research. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 223–231.
  7. Hample D. Message production. In: Donsbach W, editor. The international encyclopedia of communication. Volume 7. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2008. p. 3097–3103. DOI: 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecm076.
  8. Khizanishvili D. Cognitive approach to argumentation and message production. Vestnik Baltiiskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni I. Kanta. 2014;12:128–135. Russian.
  9. Greene JO, editor. Message production: advances in communication theory. New York: Routledge; 1997. 368 p.(Routledge communication series).
  10. Greene JO. Cognitive approach to human communication: an action assembly theory. Communication Monographs. 1984;51(4):289–306. DOI: 10.1080/03637758409390203.
  11. Beatty MJ. Communibiology. In: Donsbach W, editor. The international encyclopedia of communication. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. p. 585–591. DOI: 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecc056.
  12. Fisher JT, Keene JR, Huskey R, Weber R. The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message proces sing: taking stock of the past. Annals of the International Communication Association. 2018;42(4):270–290. DOI: 10.1080/ 23808985.2018.1534552.
  13. Beatty MJ, Heisel AD, Pascual-Ferrá P, Berger CR. Electroencephalographic analysis in communication science: testing two competing models of message production. Communication Methods and Measures. 2015;9(1–2):101–116. DOI: 10.1080/ 19312458.2014.999753.
  14. O’Keefe BJ. The logic of message design: individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs. 1988;55(1):80–103. DOI: 10.1080/03637758809376159.
  15. Fisher JT, Huskey R, Keene JR, Weber R. The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing: looking to the future. Annals of the International Communication Association. 2018;42(4):291–315. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2018. 1534551.
  16. Dillard JP. Goals – plan – action theory.In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, Wilson SR, Dillard JP, Caughlin J, Solomon D, editors. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190. wbeic148.
  17. Greene JO, Cummings R. Message production. In: Allen M, editor. SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2017. p. 977–979. DOI: 10.4135/9781483381411.n340.
  18. Berger CR. Message production processes. In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, Roskos-Ewoldsen DR, editors. Handbook of communication science. 2nd edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2010. p. 111–128. DOI: 10.4135/9781412982818.n7.
  19. Roskos-Ewoldsen DR, Roskos-Ewoldsen B. Message Processing. In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, Roskos-Ewoldsen DR, editors. Handbook of communication science. 2nd edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2010. p. 129–145. DOI: 10.4135/ 9781412982818.n8.
  20. Krcmar M, Ewoldsen DR,Koerner A. Message Processing.In: Krcmar M, Ewoldsen DR,Koerner A. Communication science theory and research: an advanced introduction. New York: Routledge; 2016. p. 154–176.
  21. Lang A. Dynamic human-centered communication systems theory. The Information Society: An International Journal. 2014;30(1):60–70. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2013.856364.
  22. Clayton RB, Lang A, Leshner G, Quick BL. Who fights, who flees? An integration of the LC4MP and psychological reactance theory. Media Psychology. 2018;22(4):545–571. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2018.1476157.
  23. Greene JO, Graves AR. Cognitive models of message production. In: Roskos-Ewoldsen DR, Monahan JL, editors. Communication and social cognition. New York: Routledge; 2007. p. 17–46. DOI: 10.4324/9780203936313.
  24. Fisher JT, Hopp FR, Weber R. Modality-specific effects of perceptual load in multimedia processing. Media and Communication [Preprint]. 2019 [cited 2021 March 10] [24 p.]. Available from: https://mediarxiv.org/cz2pj/. DOI: 10.33767/osf.io/ cz2pj.
  25. Fox JR, Park B, Lang A. When available resources become negative resources: the effects of cognitive overload on memory sensitivity and criterion bias. Communication Research. 2007;34(3):277–296. DOI: 10.1177/0093650207300429.
  26. MacBeth T. Psychology of media use. In: Downing JDH, McQuail D, Schlesinger P, Wartella L, editors. The SAGE handbook of media studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2004. p. 201–226. DOI: 10.4135/9781412976077.n11.
  27. Lang A. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication. 2000;50(1):46–70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x.
  28. Lang A. Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication. 2006;56(s1):S57–S80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x.
  29. Lang A. The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP). In: Rössler P, Hoffner CA, Zoonen L, editors. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 March 10]. Available from: https://www.jacobtfisher.com/assets/files/LC4MP_IEMP_postprint.pdf. DOI: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0077.
  30. Eckler P, Bolls P. Spreading the virus: emotional tone of viral advertising and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes. Journal of Interactive Advertising. 2011;11(2):1–11. DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2011.10722180.
  31. Chung S, Sparks JV. Motivated processing of peripheral advertising information in video games. Communication Research. 2016;43(4):518–541. DOI: 10.1177/0093650214566623.
  32. Bol N, Smets EMA, Burgers JA, Samii SM, De Haes HCJM,Van Weert JCM. Older patients’ recall of online cancer information: do ability and motivation matter more than chronological age? Journal of Health Communication. 2018;23(1):9–19. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1394400.
  33. Lang A, Basil MD. Attention, resource allocation, and communication research: what do secondary task reaction times measure anyway. Annals of the International Communication Association. 1998;21(1):443–458. DOI: 10.1080/23808985. 1998.11678957.
  34. Stanislaw H, Todorov N. Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 1999;31(1):137–149. DOI: 10.3758/BF03207704.
  35. Lang A, Kurita S, Ya Gao, Rubenking B. Measuring television message complexity as available processing resources: dimensions of information and cognitive load. Media Psychology. 2013;16(2):129–153. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2013.764707.
  36. Lang A, Sparks JV, Bradley SD, Lee S, Wang Z. Processing arousing information: Psychophysiological predictors of motivated attention. Psychophysiology. 2004;41(Supplement 1):S61.
  37. Lang A, Bailey RL, Connolly SR. Encoding systems and evolved message processing: pictures enable action, words enable thinking. Media and Communication. 2015;3(1):34–43. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v3i1.248.
  38. Lang A, Bailey RL. Understanding information selection and encoding from a dynamic, energy saving, evolved, embodied, embedded perspective. Human Communication Research. 2015;41(1):1–20. DOI: 10.1111/hcre.12040.
  39. Lang A. How the LC4MP became the DHCCST: an epistemological fairy tale. In: Floyd K, Weber R, editors. The handbook of communication science and biology. New York: Routledge; 2020. p. 397–408.
  40. Fisher JT, Huskey R, Keene JR, Weber R. Life of a model: commentary on «How the LC4MP became the DHCCST». In: Floyd K, Weber R, editors. The handbook of communication science and biology. New York: Routledge; 2020. p. 409–415.
  41. Thelen E. Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues: the international journal of relational perspectives. 2005;15(2):255–283. DOI: 10.1080/10481881509348831.
  42. Reeves B, Nass C. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford: CSLI Publications; 1996. Co-published by the «Cambridge University Press».
  43. Jiawei Liu, Bailey RL. Investigating the effect of use and social cues in food advertisements on attention, feelings of social support, and purchase intention. Health Communication. 2019;35(13):1614–1622. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1654174.
  44. Bailey RL. Influencing eating choices: biological food cues in advertising and packaging alter trajectories of decision making and behavior. Health Communication. 2017;32(10):1183–1191. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1214222.
  45. Bailey R, Muldrow A. Healthy food identification: food cues and claims affect speeded and thoughtful evaluations of food. Health Communication. 2019;34(7):735–746. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2018.1434734.
  46. Bolls PD, Weber R, Lang A, Potter RF. Media psychophysiology and neuroscience: bringing brain science into media processes and effects research. In: Oliver MB, Raney AA, Bryant J, editors. Media effects: advances in theory and research. 4th edition. New York: Routledge; 2019. p. 195–210.
  47. Berger CR.Interpersonal communication.In: Stacks DW, Salwen MB, editors. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. 2nd edition. New York:Routledge; 2008. p. 260–279.
  48. 48. Nicotera AM. Constructivist theory of Delia, Clark, and associates. In: Cushman DP, Kovačić B, editors. Watershed research traditions in human communication theory. New York: State University of New York Press; 1995. p. 45–67.
  49. Delia JG, O’Keefe BJ. The constructivist approach to communication.In: Dance FE, editor. Human communication theory: Comparative essays. New York: Harper and Row; 1982. P. 147–191.
  50. O’Keefe BJ, McCornack SA. Message design logic and message goal structure: effects on perceptions of message quality in regulative communication situations. Human Communication Research. 1987;14(1):68–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958. 1987.tb00122.x.
  51. Caughlin JP, Brashers DE, Ramey ME, Kosenko KA, Donovan-Kicken E, Bute JJ. Message design logics of responses to HIV disclosures. Human Communication Research. 2008;34(4):655–684. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00336.x.
  52. Caughlin JP. Message design logics. In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, Wilson SR, Dillard JP, Caughlin J, Solomon D, editors. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190. wbeic0026.
  53. Lambert BL, Gillespie JL. Patient perceptions of pharmacy students’ hypertension compliance-gaining messages: effects of message design logic and content themes. Health Communication. 1994;6(4):311–325. DOI: 10.1207/s15327027hc0604_6.
  54. Edwards AP, Shepherd GJ. An investigation of the relationship between implicit personal theories of communication and community behavior. Communication Studies. 2007;58(4):359–375. DOI: 10.1080/10510970701648574.
  55. Berger CR. Knowledge structures and social interaction. In: Berger CR, Roloff ME, Wilson SR, Dillard JP, Caughlin J, Solomon D, editors. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic213.
  56. Hample D, Dallinger JM. Arguers as editors. Argumentation. 1990;4:153–169. DOI: 10.1007/BF00175420.
  57. Dillard JP. Goals-plans-action theory of message production: making influence messages. Baxter LA, Braithwaite DO, editors. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2008. p. 65–76. DOI: 10.4135/9781483329529.n5.
  58. Donovan-Kicken E, Guinn TD, Romo LK, Ciceraro LDL. Thanks for asking, but let’s talk about something else: reactions to topic-avoidance messages that feature different interaction goals. Communication Research. 2013;40(3):308–336. DOI: 10.1177/0093650211422537.
  59. Henningsen MLM, Valde KS, Russell GA, Russell GR. Student-faculty interactions about disappointing grades: application of the goals-plans-actions model and the theory of planned behavior. Communication Education. 2011;60(2):174–190. DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2010.533378.
  60. Greene JO. Action Assembly Theory. In: Littlejohn SW, Foss KA, editors. Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Volume 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009. p. 8–10. DOI: 10.4135/9781412959384.n3.
  61. Greene JO. Action assembly theory: forces of creation. In: Baxter LA, Braithwaite DO, editors. Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2008. p. 23–35.
  62. Floyd K, Weber R, editors. Handbook of communication science and biology. New York: Routledge; 2020. 524 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781351235587.
Опубликован
2021-04-09
Ключевые слова: коммуникативное поведение, обработка сообщений, производство сообщений, медиасообщение, коммуникативная компетентность, оптимизация коммуникации, массовая коммуникация
Поддерживающие организации Автор выражает искреннюю благодарность доктору филологических наук, доценту И. В. Сидорской за ценные советы и поддержку в проведении исследования.
Как цитировать
Добранов, А. И. (2021). Коммуникативное поведение человека: производство и обработка сообщений в фокусе западных исследований. Журнал Белорусского государственного университета. Журналистика, 1, 63-75. Доступно по https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/journalism/article/view/3268