Implicit Thoughts about Communication
O’Keefe and associates (O’Keefe, 1988; O’Keefe & McCornack, 1987; O’Keefe & Sheppard, 1987) have argued that people hold different assumptions about the basic purpose of communication.
They call these implicit models Message Design Logics (MDLs). Expressive, conventional, and rhetorical constitute three different MDLs.An expressive message design logic holds that the function of communication is to express one’s thoughts. Expressive MDLs view communication as the process of conveying meaning. People with an expressive MDL tend to give relatively little thought to what other people think and often say what they think, for example, “That argument is weak.” The rationale given for such open communication is that the communicator is “honest,” “says what is on his or her mind,” and is “frank.”
On the other hand, a conventional MDL views communication as the primary means to coordinate behavior according to social conventions (e.g., rules). Here the conventional MDL person remains very sensitive to violations of what they consider appropriateness and are uncomfortable when they see a friend break the norms. Thus, the conventional MDL person attempts to discover how to define the situation and act accordingly (e.g., “formal vs. informal”). For instance, adolescents commonly attend to norms that other teenagers hold, for example, how to wear one’s hair, getting pierced, selection of clothes, and so forth. The ability to interact with one’s friends will appear to depend on the extent one can act cool by enacting relevant norms.
Finally, the rhetorical message design logic refers to the belief that communication functions primarily to persuade other people during conversation. Rhetorical MDLs believe that self-expression and social conventions can be profitably used or changed to meet their interpersonal objectives. O’Keefe and colleagues (O’Keefe & McCornack, 1987; O’Keefe & Shepherd, 1987) argue that the rhetorical MDL is superior to the other two types.
Our view is that people should understand these different MDLs in operation and choose the one they find most effective and appropriate. That is to say, the reader can decide whether or not to express yourself to others, how to view and follow norms, and how interaction allows the opportunity for change.Roloff and Janiszewski (1989) add that the more carefully one constructs a message, the more likely the message will overcome obstacles to goal achievement and, therefore, be successful. The interplay of goals and messages is especially relevant to, and evident in, situations in which people have multiple goals. These situations are quite complex and require the use of different types of messages to achieve the various goals. In these situations, cognitive processing affects message production; people who can handle the increased cognitive demands will be able to create and convey messages that reflect their various goals (Cegala & Waldron, 1992; Greene & Lindsey, 1989). According to MDL, people try to create messages that allow them to pursue multiple goals (Tracey & Coupland, 1990).
O’Keefe (1988), in her discussion of goal structure, defined three levels of message complexity that seem to parallel these distinctions. Minimal messages occur when communicators have no clear goal, unifunctional messages focus on one goal, and multifunctional messages are used to pursue multiple goals. Multifunctional messages are designed with attention to all relevant goals, whereas unifunctional messages focus on one goal and ignore the others. To extend this idea, interpersonal goals are generally achieved more effectively through multifunctional messages that convey the actor’s goals and consider the needs of the partner (O’Keefe & McCornack, 1987). More specifically, strategies and messages should be chosen that work together to allow people to achieve their instrumental, self-presentation, and relational goals for a particular interaction (Applegate & Leichty, 1984).
Likewise, people’s messages reflect their goals and help them to achieve them. Without communication in some form, people would be basically unable to achieve their interpersonal goals. Based on the above, the following principles are warranted:
Conclusion 11.3: People attempt to accomplish more than one goal at a time, with certain goals as primary and others are secondary.
Conclusion 11.4: Self-presentation conflict can lead to aggression when people's selfpresentations (identity management) are directly or indirectly rebuked.
Conclusion 11.5: People hold different Message Design Logics; effective communicators know that such differences exist and they choose which MDL is the most effective and appropriate in a given episode.
Suggestion 11.4: To achieve goal control through strategic conflict be mindful that your goals can change with information gained from your conversational partner. So be aware of your own goals and how to achieve them.
Suggestion 11.5: Be careful to maintain mutual face, so that conflicts about one or both parties' identities do not overshadow conflicts and lead to aggression; rather, underscore your respect for the other person.
Suggestion 11.6: For strategic conflict, know that you have a Message Design Logic that leads you to use communication in particular ways.
Suggestion 11.7: Adapt your Message Design Logic that is the most effective and appropriate in a given episode for specific individuals.