define hypothesis communication

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies

Communication

• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Definitions and Concepts of Communication

Introduction, general overviews.

• Reference Works
• Anthologies
• Online Bibliographies
• History of the Idea
• Culturally Based Concepts
• Conceptual Models and Metaphors
• Multiplicity of Definitions
• Intentionality, Behavior, and Systems
• Metacommunication and Paradox
• Representation, Experience, and Mutual Understanding
• Incommunicability and the Limits of Communication
• Communication as Constitutive
• Materiality and Discursivity
• Machine and Human Communication
• Communicative Action, Strategic Action, and Dialogue
• Communication as Ideology
• Cultural Bias and De-Westernization

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Codes and Cultural Discourse Analysis
• Communication History
• Critical and Cultural Studies
• Ethnography of Communication
• Global Englishes
• Intercultural Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International Communications
• Interpretation/Reception
• Media Sociology
• Philosophy of Communication
• Religion and the Media
• Religious Rhetoric
• Sense-Making/Sensemaking
• The Interface between Organizational Change and Organizational Change Communication
• Wilbur Schramm

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Culture Shock and Communication
• LGBTQ+ Family Communication
• Queerbaiting
• Find more forthcoming titles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Definitions and Concepts of Communication by Robert T. Craig LAST REVIEWED: 27 April 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 27 April 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0172

What is communication? The question is deceptively simple, not because there is no straightforward answer but because there are so many answers, many of which may seem perfectly straightforward in themselves. Communication is human interaction . . . the transfer of information . . . effect or influence . . . mutual understanding . . . community . . . culture . . . and so on. Any effort to reconcile these straightforward definitions quickly runs into contradictions and puzzles. Human interaction involves the transfer of information, but machines also exchange information, and so do animals, so do chemical molecules. Is human communication essentially different in some way? Effect or influence is not the same as mutual understanding and is sometimes quite the opposite. Is mutual understanding ever really possible? Is communication an intentional act or a process that goes on regardless of our intentions? If communication is culture, is it necessarily also community? Doesn’t the concept of communication vary, depending on how it is understood and practiced in each particular culture? Is it all relative, then, or are there good reasons to be critical of particular cultural concepts? Obviously, communication can be defined in many different ways, and at least some of those differences seem potentially consequential. Whether we think of communication as essentially information transfer, or mutual understanding, or culture can make a difference, not only for how we understand the process intellectually but also for how we communicate in practice. Of course, we needn’t all agree on a single definition or choose a single definition for ourselves, but we can learn a lot by contemplating and debating the theoretical and practical implications of different concepts and theories of communication. This is what communication theorists do, and the academic subject of communication theory is a rich and varied resource for learning how to think about communication. The field of communication theory encompasses a number of distinct intellectual traditions, some thousands of years old, others very new. Some theories lend themselves to scientific empirical studies of communication, others to philosophical reflection or cultural criticism. This article is intended to represent the diversity of communication theory, hopefully in ways that are useful and inviting of further study rather than merely confusing. Included are introductory overview essays, textbooks, and other general sources such as encyclopedias, anthologies, and journals. Other sections cover historical studies on the idea of communication, ethnographic studies on culturally based concepts of communication, and theoretical models of the communication process. The heading entitled Conceptual Issues is divided into eleven subsections, each focusing on a key conceptual issue or controversy in communication theory.

For readers wanting to dip a toe in communication theory before diving in, the articles in this section provide overviews of the concept of communication while introducing important issues and conceptual approaches. Eadie and Goret 2013 surveys key concepts of communication that have influenced the academic field of communication studies. Cobley 2008 sketches the origins and historical development of the concept of communication. Steinfatt 2009 discusses the problem of defining communication and some characteristics of communication that affect the usefulness of definitions. Craig 1999 presents a conceptual model of communication theory as a field that integrates seven distinct intellectual traditions.

Cobley, Paul. 2008. Communication: Definitions and concepts. In International encyclopedia of communication . Edited by Wolfgang Donsbach. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sketches the ancient origins of the concept of communication, the distinction between communication as process and product, the social uses of communication, and 20th-century concepts that contributed to communication theory. Also notes the importance of understanding miscommunication.

Craig, Robert T. 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory 9:119–161.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

Conceptualizes communication theory as a field of “metadiscursive practice” in which diverse theoretical concepts of communication are engaged with each other and with ordinary (nontheoretical) concepts in ongoing debates about practical communication problems. Identifies seven interdisciplinary “traditions” of communication theory, each grounded in a distinct, practically oriented definition of communication.

Eadie, William F., and Robin Goret. 2013. Theories and models of communication: Foundations and heritage. In Theories and models of communication . Edited by Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz. Handbooks of Communication Science, HOCS 1. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

With a focus on concepts of communication within the academic field of communication studies, this chapter organizes conceptions of communication under five broad categories: shaper of public opinion; language use; information transmission; developer of relationships; and definer, interpreter, and critic of culture.

Steinfatt, Thomas M. 2009. Definitions of communication. In Encyclopedia of communication theory . Edited by Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Argues that the problem of defining communication not is to discover the correct meaning of the term, but is rather to construct a definition that is useful for studying communication. Distinguishes several characteristics of communication that affect the usefulness of definitions. A critique of this piece is that it presupposes a transmission (speaker to listener) model of communication and fails to address alternative models that highlight constitutive, systemic, and other characteristics of communication (see under Conceptual Issues ).

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Communication »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Accounting Communication
• Acculturation Processes and Communication
• Action Assembly Theory
• Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis
• Activist Media
• Adherence and Communication
• Adolescence and the Media
• Advertisements, Televised Political
• Advertising
• Advertising, Children and
• Advertising, International
• Advocacy Journalism
• Agenda Setting
• Annenberg, Walter H.
• Apologies and Accounts
• Applied Communication Research Methods
• Argumentation
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Advertising
• Attitude-Behavior Consistency
• Audience Fragmentation
• Audience Studies
• Authoritarian Societies, Journalism in
• Bakhtin, Mikhail
• Bandwagon Effect
• Baudrillard, Jean
• Blockchain and Communication
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Brand Equity
• British and Irish Magazine, History of the
• Broadcasting, Public Service
• Capture, Media
• Castells, Manuel
• Celebrity and Public Persona
• Civil Rights Movement and the Media, The
• Co-Cultural Theory and Communication
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Collective Memory, Communication and
• Comedic News
• Communication Apprehension
• Communication Campaigns
• Communication, Definitions and Concepts of
• Communication Law
• Communication Management
• Communication Networks
• Communication, Philosophy of
• Community Attachment
• Community Journalism
• Community Structure Approach
• Computational Journalism
• Computer-Mediated Communication
• Content Analysis
• Corporate Social Responsibility and Communication
• Crisis Communication
• Critical Race Theory and Communication
• Cross-tools and Cross-media Effects
• Cultivation
• Cultural and Creative Industries
• Cultural Imperialism Theories
• Cultural Mapping
• Cultural Persuadables
• Cultural Pluralism and Communication
• Cyberpolitics
• Death, Dying, and Communication
• Debates, Televised
• Deliberation
• Developmental Communication
• Diffusion of Innovations
• Digital Divide
• Digital Gender Diversity
• Digital Intimacies
• Digital Literacy
• Diplomacy, Public
• Distributed Work, Comunication and
• Documentary and Communication
• E-democracy/E-participation
• E-Government
• Elaboration Likelihood Model
• Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM)
• Embedded Coverage
• Entertainment
• Entertainment-Education
• Environmental Communication
• Ethnic Media
• Experiments
• Families, Multicultural
• Family Communication
• Federal Communications Commission
• Feminist and Queer Game Studies
• Feminist Data Studies
• Feminist Journalism
• Feminist Theory
• Focus Groups
• Food Studies and Communication
• Freedom of the Press
• Friendships, Intercultural
• Gatekeeping
• Gender and the Media
• Global Media, History of
• Global Media Organizations
• Glocalization
• Goffman, Erving
• Habermas, Jürgen
• Habituation and Communication
• Health Communication
• Hermeneutic Communication Studies
• Homelessness and Communication
• Hook-Up and Dating Apps
• Hostile Media Effect
• Identification with Media Characters
• Identity, Cultural
• Image Repair Theory
• Implicit Measurement
• Impression Management
• Infographics
• Information and Communication Technology for Development
• Information Management
• Information Overload
• Information Processing
• Infotainment
• Innis, Harold
• Instructional Communication
• Integrated Marketing Communications
• Interactivity
• Intercultural Capital
• Intercultural Communication, Tourism and
• Intercultural Communication, Worldview in
• Intercultural Competence
• Intercultural Conflict Mediation
• Intercultural Dialogue
• Intercultural New Media
• Intergenerational Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Interpersonal LGBTQ Communication
• Interpretive Communities
• Journalism, Accuracy in
• Journalism, Alternative
• Journalism and Trauma
• Journalism, Citizen
• Journalism, Citizen, History of
• Journalism Ethics
• Journalism, Interpretive
• Journalism, Peace
• Journalism, Tabloid
• Journalists, Violence against
• Knowledge Gap
• Lazarsfeld, Paul
• Leadership and Communication
• Mass Communication
• McLuhan, Marshall
• Media Activism
• Media Aesthetics
• Media and Time
• Media Convergence
• Media Credibility
• Media Dependency
• Media Ecology
• Media Economics
• Media Economics, Theories of
• Media, Educational
• Media Effects
• Media Ethics
• Media Events
• Media Exposure Measurement
• Media, Gays and Lesbians in the
• Media Literacy
• Media Logic
• Media Management
• Media Policy and Governance
• Media Regulation
• Media, Social
• Media Systems Theory
• Merton, Robert K.
• Message Characteristics and Persuasion
• Mobile Communication Studies
• Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Approaches to
• Multinational Organizations, Communication and Culture in
• Murdoch, Rupert
• Narrative Engagement
• Narrative Persuasion
• Net Neutrality
• News Framing
• News Media Coverage of Women
• NGOs, Communication and
• Online Campaigning
• Open Access
• Organizational Change and Organizational Change Communicat...
• Organizational Communication
• Organizational Communication, Aging and
• Parasocial Theory in Communication
• Participation, Civic/Political
• Participatory Action Research
• Patient-Provider Communication
• Peacebuilding and Communication
• Perceived Realism
• Personalized Communication
• Persuasion and Social Influence
• Persuasion, Resisting
• Photojournalism
• Political Advertising
• Political Communication, Normative Analysis of
• Political Economy
• Political Knowledge
• Political Marketing
• Political Scandals
• Political Socialization
• Polls, Opinion
• Product Placement
• Public Interest Communication
• Public Opinion
• Public Relations
• Public Sphere
• Queer Intercultural Communication
• Queer Migration and Digital Media
• Race and Communication
• Racism and Communication
• Radio Studies
• Reality Television
• Reasoned Action Frameworks
• Reporting, Investigative
• Rhetoric and Communication
• Rhetoric and Intercultural Communication
• Rhetoric and Social Movements
• Rhetoric, Religious
• Rhetoric, Visual
• Risk Communication
• Rumor and Communication
• Schramm, Wilbur
• Science Communication
• Scripps, E. W.
• Selective Exposure
• Sesame Street
• Sex in the Media
• Small-Group Communication
• Social Capital
• Social Change
• Social Cognition
• Social Construction
• Social Identity Theory and Communication
• Social Interaction
• Social Movements
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Protest
• Sports Communication
• Stereotypes
• Strategic Communication
• Superdiversity
• Surveillance and Communication
• Symbolic Interactionism in Communication
• Synchrony in Intercultural Communication
• Tabloidization
• Telecommunications History/Policy
• Television, Cable
• Textual Analysis and Communication
• Third Culture Kids
• Third-Person Effect
• Time Warner
• Transgender Media Studies
• Transmedia Storytelling
• Two-Step Flow
• United Nations and Communication
• Urban Communication
• Uses and Gratifications
• Video Deficit
• Video Games and Communication
• Violence in the Media
• Virtual Reality and Communication
• Visual Communication
• Web Archiving
• Whistleblowing
• Whiteness Theory in Intercultural Communication
• Youth and Media
• Zines and Communication
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.174]
• 81.177.182.174

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Human Communication Research
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

“what theory are you using”, theory is ubiquitous in published communication scholarship, what is theory anyway, is theory really necessary, the chicken or the egg: theory or data first, will any theory do, what is a theoretical contribution, theoretical bandwidth, what are the benefits of theory, the current state of communication theory, looking forward, data availability, conflicts of interest.

• < Previous

The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Timothy R Levine, David M Markowitz, The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication, Human Communication Research , Volume 50, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 154–161, https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad037

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Communication is a theory-driven discipline, but does it always need to be? This article raises questions related to the role of theory in communication science, with the goal of providing a thoughtful discussion about what theory is, why theory is (or is not) important, the role of exploration in theory development, what constitutes a theoretical contribution, and the current state of theory in the field. We describe communication researchers’ interest with theory by assessing the number of articles in the past decade of research that mention theory (nearly 80% of papers have attended to theory in some way). This article concludes with a forward-looking view of how scholars might think about theory in their work, why exploratory research should be valued more and not considered as conflicting with theory, and how conceptual clarity related to theoretical interests and contributions are imperative for human communication research.

Theory looms large in the practice of human communication scholarship. College-level textbooks on various communication topics describe relevant theories to students enrolled in communication classes. In thesis and dissertation defenses, students are often asked, “What theory are you using?,” implying that they must apply at least one theory to ground their research and contribute to the field. In the peer-review process of academic journals, a perceived failure to be sufficiently theoretical can be grounds for rejection. Few, if any, modern communication scholars would embrace the labels of being “dust-bowl” or atheoretical. Surely, no serious communication scholar is genuinely and categorically against theory. Theory is undeniably a desirable “warm-fuzzy good thing” in modern academic culture ( Mook, 1983 ). Without it, the bedrock of communication and other social sciences is shaky and uncertain. No academic discipline could be built from a purely empirical foundation. Having theory—understanding the value it provides, what we gain by building and extending theory, and the contributions that a scholar can make to theory—is more complicated and nuanced, however. We interrogate these complications in this article.

This article addresses a broad set of questions about the past, present, and future role of theory in communication scholarship: What is theory? Do all scholarly contributions require theory? What does it mean to make a theoretical contribution? What does theory do for us? And, if we continue to accept theory as a scholarly imperative, what is the current state of theory in the field and where might communication theory go in the future? To address these questions, we follow and draw on important commentaries such as those of Chaffee and Berger (1987) , Slater and Gleason (2012) , and DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) , but we provide our own perspective. Unlike similar essays on communication theory, our goal is not to be prescriptive about how to do theory (e.g., how to create or even define theory), nor are we attempting to be pollyannish about the many accepted virtues of theory. Instead, a conversation about communication theory is advanced by asking questions that are hard to answer, interrogating some often-implicit presumptions about the role of theory in communication science, and raising some less obvious implications of theory. This article will succeed if it prompts deeper thought and discussion on the topic of communication theory across many areas of the field. We envision this being useful for early career communication scholars who are uncertain about what theory really is and why it matters, and a thoughtful commentary for seasoned communication researchers who may wrestle with theory development as they move forward in their established research programs.

In our experience, graduate students (and undergrads, junior faculty, visiting scholars, etc.) are frequently asked “what theory are you using?” when trying to position one’s work within communication science at large. This question raises many meta-theoretical issues relevant to this article. First, the question implies that theory is a prerequisite for scholarship. Later in this article, we will argue that this perspective is unfortunately limiting, and that there is a need for exploratory and pre-theoretical inquiry and data. Further, a relevant theory is not always available for each research interest. A better initial question, in our opinion, asks if there is a relevant theory to be tested, extended, or used. When no relevant theory exists, the lack of a theory should not preclude research nor publication. Advancing theory is undeniably valuable. Not all scholarly contributions, however, explicitly advance theory in ways that are recognized at the time they are written.

When a relevant theory or theories are available, follow-up questions might address how the theory is being engaged (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Is the theory being directly tested in a way that is informative about the merits of the theory? How is the theory being advanced? Is a boundary condition being explored or the scope being extended? Merely using a theory to inform a topic can provide valuable direction and insights, but using theory is less likely to push the theory and its related propositions forward. Making a theoretical contribution involves actually advancing the theory itself ( Slater & Gleason, 2012 ).

We opened by opining that communication scholarship is consumed with theory and that contributing to theory is a priority of the discipline. To descriptively demonstrate this extent of this interest, we evaluated over 10,000 full text communication articles across 26 journals that were published in the last decade (see Markowitz et al., 2021 ), in search of how often they focus on five key theory-related terms ( theory , theories , theoretical , theoretical contribution , theoretical contributions ). The top panel of Figure 1 represents the percentage of papers within each year that mentioned at least one of the five terms related to theory. On average, 79.1% (8,320 of 10,517) of articles mentioned one theory-related term, with a relatively stable distribution over time (see the bottom panel of Figure 1 for a breakdown by journal). Of the 60,727 times that one of the five theory-related terms appeared in the sample, over half were related to the word theory alone (55.1%; 33,462/60,727). A thematic review of these cases revealed that theory is used in a variety of ways by communication researchers. The word is attached to specific social scientific theories (e.g., Construal Level Theory, Social Identity Theory), the term is used abstractly to feign the appearance of theory (e.g., “message processing theory,” “organizational communication theory”), the word theory serves as sign-posts in academic papers (e.g., “in the theory section above”), and finally, the term attempts to mark one’s contributions (e.g., “has several implications for theory and research on selective exposure”). 1 Together, the ubiquity of theory and theory-related terms, we believe, stems from and reflects expectations for publishing norms that value theory in the field of communication.

The rate of mentioning theory in communication science articles.

Our findings align with those of Slater and Gleason (2012) who examined articles in three elite communication journals in 2008–2009. They report that a sizable number of articles advanced theories in at least one of several ways. They reported, for example, that 54% of the articles they examined in Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , and Communication Research addressed boundary conditions, 40% expanded a theories range of application, 22% advanced a mechanism, and 12% revised a theory. Alternatively, theoretical contributions, such as creating a new theory, comparing theories, and synthesizing across theories, were less common occurring in only 8% of articles combined.

We note, however, that mentioning at least one theory-related term does not mean that the work counts as contributing to theory. Of course, deeply theoretical work mentions theory, but so too do articles that engage in a practice that might be called theoretical name dropping . Our concern is that if work must invoke theory to pass the peer-review process, then exploratory and pre-theoretical work might mention a theory or otherwise invoke theory-related words to appear theoretical and thereby get published. In line with this concern, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) found that the use of words in articles specifically related to theory evaluation were infrequent. In a sample of articles from four top journals between 2013 and 2015 ( Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , Communication Research , Communication Monographs ), just less than one-third of them included at least one theory evaluation word, and at least half of those were evaluating method rather than theory.

Deciding what is truly theory and what is not requires defining theory. This is where our conversation becomes more complex.

Despite the ubiquity of researchers’ focus on theory in published communication scholarship ( Figure 1 ), any thoughtful discussion of theory is fraught from the start due to unavoidable definitional ambiguity. There is no one definition of communication theory, nor can there be, nor should there be. As Miller and Nicholson (1976) rightfully suggested, definitions are not by their nature things that are correct or incorrect. Although undeniably circular, words mean what people mean by them, and people use words differently. This is especially true of theory. No one scholar, nor do a collection of scholars, become the definitive authority or arbitrator on what theory is and what it is not.

Definitional diversity in conceptually constituting theory is intellectually rich. In modern intellectual thought, different specialties and perspectives are welcomed and valued. The alternatives to diversity in theory definitions are hegemony and the demise of academic freedom. Treasured intellectual diversity, however, comes at the cost of potential misunderstanding stemming from people using the same word to mean so many different things (e.g., see Bem, 2003 ). Valuing intellectual diversity also requires us to abandon rigidity in prescribing fixed rules of doing communication theory and research.

Although there can be no one universal definition of theory, we agree with DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) that regardless of approaches, scholars should strive for greater clarity in what they mean by theory and their theoretical contribution. Diversity in definitions should be expected, but clarity and the thoughtful explication of one’s approach to theory should also be expected in any social science.

The lack of a shared definition for theory puts communication scholars in a Catch-22. Communication scholars value theory and appreciate approaching theory with rigor and clarity. Communication scholars also value intellectual diversity, and valuing diverse perspectives and approaches prevents scholars from imposing their own views of theory on other scholars. We find that an “anything goes” approach to theory intellectually troubling, but we are equally disturbed by imposing views and perspectives on other scholars. While we do not see an easy way out of this conundrum, we see much value in acknowledging that it exists and being thoughtful about how we balance conflicting values.

When scholars define theory, perhaps the most notable dimension of variability for the word theory is narrowness-breadth. At the wide end of this continuum, theory is synonymous with being minimally conceptional. Explicating a construct with a conceptual definition could constitute theory under some of the more expansive uses of the term (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Similarly, at the broad end of the continuum, theory can be synonymous with explanation. Efforts to answer “why” can count as theory. Sometimes, although we personally think this goes too far, simply adding the word theory to a topic or phenomenon (e.g., media theory, aggression theory, language theory) can pass as theory or at least provide the appearance of theory.

We prefer a much narrower use of the term, where theory can be considered a set of logically coherent and inter-related propositions or conjectures that (a) provide a unifying explanatory mechanism and (b) can be used to derive testable and falsifiable predictions . In this relatively narrow view, thinking conceptually or just explaining is not enough. Specifying a path model or set of mediated links might or might not count as theory. We note that some scholars may use the word theory even more restrictively, desiring to limit the term to formal axiomatic theories, and considering work to count as theoretical only if it conforms to a strict hypothetico-deductive depiction (or caricature) of science. Slater and Gleason (2012) provide a definition similar to ours. They see “the primary role of theory in communication science as the provision of explanation, of proposing causal processes, the explanation of ‘how’ and ‘under what circumstances’ in ways that result in empirically testable and falsifiable predictions” (p. 216).

The point here, however, is not to advocate for particular definition of theory but instead to argue that the efforts to impose a universal definition of theory is fundamentally misguided. Appreciation of theory requires recognition of the diversity of approaches to theory and a willingness to be respectful of approaches other than one’s own. The topic of theory needs to be approached with a cognizance of its diversity. Arguments about whose definition of theory is best will often be counterproductive. More constructive arguments will provide cogent reasons why an approach to defining theory is best for the intellectual endeavor to which it is applied.

Now that we have embraced the ambiguity inherent in defining theory, we next contemplate the necessity of theory. If we cannot provide a consensus definition of theory, then how can we demand or test it? Do (or would) we even know theory when we see it?

In our view, the necessity of theory varies according to the breadth of the term’s use. Being minimally conceptual is probably a prerequisite for making a scholarly contribution. After all, understanding what one is studying is typically either a prerequisite for, or a desired outcome of, advancing knowledge. If scholarly activities — such as concept explication, creating a new measure, description, observation, and hypothesis generation — indeed count (see Slater & Gleason, 2012 ), then requiring theory seems constructive.

One can imagine empirically documenting an effect or phenomenon whose explanation is not yet understood. While this might not count as a theoretical advancement under most uses of the term, it might nevertheless make a valuable contribution to knowledge. If nothing else, we typically need to know what needs explaining before we go about explaining it ( Rozin, 2001 ). Thus, disregarding the contribution of scholarship that is not “full-on” theory in some narrow sense is counterproductive to the advancement of knowledge.

Park et al. (2005) provide an instructive example. Their first study simply documents the existence of a strong finding. Unlike in the United States, Korean spam emails often contain an apology. What follows are five experiments testing various explanations before settling on a normative account. The work is not grounded in a specific theory, but it is clearly a systematic effort to document and explain a communication phenomenon. What if, however, they had packaged their studies as a series of articles rather than in one. Would this make the work any more or less theoretical?

One of the more controversial, meta-scientific questions in communication science is: Must we have theory? We answer “yes” in the broadest sense, as it helps to clarify our thinking about a topic. We also answer “no” in a narrower sense of theory. In explaining why not, we acknowledge that it would also always be better if we had at least one good theory than if we did not. Nevertheless, a well-articulated and relevant theory is not currently available for every conceivable topic or hypothesis worthy of investigation. It is not hard to imagine useful and enlightening scholarship that is neither formally engaged in theory building nor explicitly testing an existing theory. Simply put, if one is interested in a question or phenomenon where suitable theory is currently lacking, this ought not preclude research. Consequently, it follows that not all valuable scholarship requires theory in the narrow sense.

Which comes first, theory or data? The answer is it can be either, or the two can work together in an iterative, interactive, and abductive process ( Rozeboom, 2016 ). Different disciplines and specialties put a different emphasis on the primacy of theory in empirical research. Communication, on the one hand, sometimes views a strict hypothetico-deductive dogma as the ideal for formal theory testing, presupposing an existing formal theory from which to derive hypotheses. Computer science, on the other hand, is typically less strict in its placement or appreciation of theory in the research process. Quite often, computer scientists will obtain data, analyze them, and then identify the theory or theories that fit the findings as a final step. A communication scholar may scoff at this research process, though norms are powerful drivers of behavior ( Cialdini, 2006 ), and conventions related to theory are to be appreciated and scrutinized within the context of a discipline, specialty and even sub-specialty.

Building theory can be a purely logical process, but we are likely to develop more and better communication research if relevant data from exploratory research is available. Exploratory research, we contend, is not synonymous with being atheoretical. We tentatively define exploratory research as research guided by curiosity and seeking to document a finding or set of findings rather engaging in hypothetico-deductive hypothesis testing or focusing on explanation . We further note that not all hypothesis tests are theoretical. The logic behind hypotheses often takes the form of “others have found this, therefore we will too.” Such research falls in between more purely exploratory work and explicit theory testing where hypotheses follow from theory.

We contend that exploration is symbiotic with and often contributes to theory because it can highlight relationships that were unanticipated by theory, offering new hypotheses for future research. Even purely descriptive research can provide an understanding of the phenomena of interest, thereby providing a solid empirical foundation for conceptual construction. The placement of theory in the research process is not specifically a statement about the work’s value or rigor; it likely emphasizes the goals and norms of a particular research community. Consistent with our views on defining theory, we encourage our colleagues to be ecumenical in approaching theory-data time ordering.

An even more difficult question asks if all theories are equal. If some theories are indeed better than others, then what makes them so? Are there instances when no applicable theory is preferred to a misapplied or unreliable theory?

At the risk of diverting from our previous, more ecumenical perspective, we will tentatively take the position that some theories are indeed preferable to other theories—at least for certain applications—and along certain criteria of evaluation. For example, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) expanded on Chaffee and Berger’s (1987) list of criteria for evaluating theory. Their refined list includes explanatory power, predictive power, parsimony, falsifiability, logical consistency, heuristic value, and organizing power. Building on this work, we further cautiously propose that theory can do more harm than good when it is misapplied, used haphazardly, or thrown at data to see if it sticks. If the goal of scholarship is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, it seems possible that certain frames, stances, models, and understandings might be counterproductive or misguided.

From our perspective, a first consideration regarding the utility of theory is one of relevance. Does the sphere of application fall within the boundary conditions of the theory, or does the application involve interrogating the boundary conditions of the theory? If the answer to both questions is no, then the application is probably ill-advised on the grounds of relevance. Irrelevant theory distracts from empirical contributions. This is the theoretical equivalent of a red herring argument.

The second test is more difficult and involves a cost–benefit analysis of gains and losses in knowledge, insight, and understanding. Consistent with commentators such as Levine and McCornack (2014) , we envision evaluative dimensions, such as clarity, coherence, and verisimilitude, in assessing the scholarly value added by a theory. The more that a theory clarifies rather than clouds our understanding, the more valuable it is. Theory can bring order to otherwise unruly facts, findings, and ideas, or it can lead to logical inconsistencies, the latter obviously being less desirable. The insights offered by theories can align with known facts and findings or it can be contradicted by data and evidence ( Levine & McCornack, 2014 ).

In practice, assessing the alignment of theory with data is an especially thorny issue in quantitative, social scientific communication research. Not all scholarship strives to be empirical nor scientific, and theory-data alignment might not be the point in many scholarly endeavors. But when it is, theory-data alignment quickly becomes deeply problematic in the actual practice of communication scholarship, particularly when inferential statistics, and especially p -values, are involved ( Denworth, 2019 ).

One issue concerns “undead theories” ( Ferguson & Heene, 2012 ). It is not unusual in the social sciences for theoretical predictions to be soundly falsified, yet, nevertheless, applied despite their documented empirical deficiencies. Such theories are functionally sets of counterfactual conjectures that are passed off as good science. We anticipate that the reader will have their favorite undead theory, but we also anticipate that one scholar’s undead theory is another’s source of wisdom. Both can be true, which we appreciate, and will explain.

While the replication crisis in the social sciences has become an increasingly recognized issue ( Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ), it has also long been recognized that modern social science practices ensure that almost any hypothesis will receive mixed support regardless of its validity or verisimilitude ( Meehl, 1978 ). Essentially, the fact that the nil-null hypothesis is never literally true regardless of the soundness of the theory (Meehl’s crud factor), sub-optimal statistical power, questionable research practices such as p -hacking, and publication bias all combine to make the empirical merit of any claim murky at best ( Dienlin et al., 2021 ; Lewis, 2020 ; Markowitz et al., 2021 ). Accumulating more data over time often further muddies the water as mixed findings pile up and multiple citations can legitimately be provided in support of incompatible empirical claims. Not even meta-analysis is immune. As prior work shows ( Levine & Weber, 2020 ), regardless of the topic, findings in communication are heterogeneous, and the heterogeneity is seldom resolved by moderator analysis. In this way, meta-analytic results often document rather than resolve conclusions of mixed support for theoretical predictions. The net result is that a theory’s supporters and critics can both provide plenty of citations for why the theory is well supported and clearly falsified.

A common concern in academic research publishing is to articulate how one’s work makes a substantial theorical contribution ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ; Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Articles in flagship, high-impact communication journals are often rejected if theoretical contributions are not substantial and clearly expressed. For example, the Journal of Communication suggests “Submissions are expected to present arguments that are theoretically sophisticated, conceptually meaningful, and methodologically sound” ( Journal of Communication, 2022 ). The words sophisticated and meaningful in their instructions for authors are subjective and elusive. Considering the subjective aspect of such appraisal, what does it mean to make a theoretical contribution?

Given that we have argued so far that defining theory is misguided, that formal theory is not necessary for all research endeavors, and that unequivocally establishing the empirical merit of theory is nearly impossible, one might expect an argument dismissing the very idea of theoretical contribution. A close read of what preceded, however, conveys several ways to make a theoretical contribution (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Clarifying a conceptualization, providing an explanation, making or testing a prediction, testing theoretical boundary conditions, articulating a unifying framework integrating two or more seemly unrelated facts, and identifying a moderator that resolves previously unexplained heterogeneity can all count as theoretical contributions if done in a way to be conceptually coherent. One can seek to create new theory, pit existing theories against each other, or reconcile apparently conflicting theories. In our view, all such outcomes can offer new knowledge that conceptually builds on an existing foundation of empirical findings.

Critically, a theoretical contribution is different from discovering a new, statistically significant finding. Moving from empirical findings to theoretical contribution involves answering questions related to the mechanism underlying the finding. How does the finding fit within the larger nomological network of findings in the domain ( Cronbach & Meehl, 1955 )? What are the limits of the finding? How robust is it? How far can it be generalized? What are its moderators and antecedents? These questions, among many others, may help to position a finding better as a theoretical contribution instead of an empirical one-off result.

The most basic types of theoretical contributions are conceptualizing or explicating a new construct, reconceptualizing an existing construct, or providing a new explanation for an empirically documented effect. These types of contributions might be considered theoretical building blocks for subsequent theoretical development. Although these types of contributions may also be seen as just minimally theoretical, they are nevertheless important because other types of theoretical contributions require well explicated components and explanations. Coherent conceptual structures can lead to testable and falsifiable hypotheses about human communication and logically coherent networks of hypotheses can lead to formal theory.

A second approach to theoretical contribution involves variations on theory creation. Arguments for the desirability of a new theory will often take one of three forms. The first notes the absence of a relevant theory for a given topic or purpose. If no relevant theory exists and if theory is desired, then it follows that theory creation is needed. The second type of argument rests on making the case that existing, relevant theory is deficient, and the deficiencies are both sufficiently severe and intractable to justify a new theory as a rival. Third, prior theory can be accepted, but arguments are made that the new perspective offers additional insights that would not otherwise be gained.

Once a theory exists in the literature, it is often the goal of communication research to test, extend, modify, or apply a theory to improve our understanding of human communication. Each of these (testing, extending, modifying, or applying) moves communication theory forward. We note, however, that at least for scientific research, testing should typically precede the other forms of contribution to ensure theoretical adequacy prior to extension or application.

Many discussions of theoretical contributions will involve value judgments regarding theoretical bandwidth. Discussions of theoretical bandwidth, in turn, may deal with two qualitatively different issues. The first relates to how theory is defined. One might think of explicating a construct as a narrower contribution than explaining the relationship between two explicated constructs. Explaining how a well-understood effect fits with a network of documented effects is broader still.

Second, communication theories vary widely in their topical scope and boundary conditions. Communication theories might focus on a particular topic or phenomenon, others on a broader domain or function, and others still might be general theories of communication. Further, regardless of topical breadth, boundary conditions can vary. Communication theories, for example, might be limited to a particular age group, point in time, media, or culture.

It is likely tempting to equate theoretical bandwidth and theoretical contribution under the likely tacit presumption that more is better. While surely there are knowledge-gain advantages to breadth, any firm link between breadth and contribution is qualified by all other things being equal. Surely contribution is more closely tied to how well a theoretical goal is accomplished than to how ambitious the goal is (cf., DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ).

Rather than reviewing the extensive literature on the value of theory, we focus here on two benefits of theory that we believe are highlighted less frequently but are no less important.

Generality and external validity

Perhaps the most underappreciated benefit of theory is that it can provide satisfying answers to questions of generality in ways that data simply cannot. Theory is a better approach to achieving external validity than research design.

We have all seen data collected on college students and wondered if the findings might apply to working adults. We all likely agree that for most topics, a nationally representative sample is preferable to a sample of college students (though, see Coppock et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, we might still wonder that if the data were collected at a different point in time, or if the questions were worded a bit differently, or perhaps presented in a different order, would the findings be the same? These sorts of questions cannot be answered with data because we can never sample everyone everywhere over all times in all possible ways. No matter how much data we have, data are finite, and representative sampling and inferential statistics do not change this uncomfortable truth.

Fortunately, theory provides an elegant solution. Theoretical claims specify what is expected under what conditions. Theory, and more precisely its boundary conditions, provide us with statements of the extent of generality. As described by Mook (1983) , we specify generality theoretically, then we test and validate claims of generality with data. Rather than fretting over the sampling of participants, multiple message instantiations, multiple situations, and a host of other study-specific idiosyncrasies, we use theory to make generalizations and data to test those generalizations ( Ewoldsen, 2022 ). We could ask if a theory applies to non-WEIRD cultures, and then test core claims with a non-WEIRD culture ( Henrich et al., 2010 ; Many Labs 2, 2018 ).

Theory as agenda setting

A second underappreciated function of theory is research agenda setting. Just as the media might tell us which news topics and frames are important, so too does theory tell us what we need to study, how to study it, and what to expect. It is not unusual for new researchers to struggle with topic selection. Theory provides a straight-forward way to come up with a hypothesis and an approach to testing it. This topic selection approach can also be flipped. We can ask, what if a theory was wrong? How might we show that? A research design should flow from these questions.

Theory offers an even more important agenda setting function. As Berlo (1960) famously identified when defining communication as process, a wide variety of forces can affect how communication unfolds. Regardless of the specific topic or focus, the potentially important considerations are numerous. Theory tells us what is most important and what is less important. In other words, theory tells us what to prioritize.

We are more pleased than not with the current state of communication theory as its progress is undeniable. There was a time when the lack of communication theory was bemoaned and when most theories were taken from other disciplines (see Berger, 1991 ). Our perception of the current literature, formed by our lived experience across decades of publishing and reading communication scholarship, is that the number of communication theories and theoretical ideas have grown, and the communication trade deposit with related fields has diminished. The latter point, of course, deserves a strict empirical evaluation to test how communication and other social sciences share ideas and theories.

As the reader has surely noticed, we have approached this article from a particular perspective. The present authors have a quantitative and social scientific approach to communication scholarship. A consequence of originating from this scholarly tradition is that our commentary is better targeted for research publishing in outlets such as Human Communication Research than outlets like Communication, Culture, & Critique . Both are worthy outlets, but they have different orientations and conventions.

Like most communication scholars, we are theory advocates. We use, have written our own, and made contributions to theory on a range of topics relevant to human communication. While we ascribe to the idea that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” ( Lewin, 1951 ,  p. 169), blind allegiance to theory is ill-advised. Theories, we believe, must have testable and falsifiable components to them. We encourage our fellow communication scholars to “follow the data.” Moving science forward requires theoretical predictions that hold up to data over time.

Replications play an increasingly important role in theory testing, but also add a final set of complications to address. Theory and evidence can misalign for several reasons, and it is usually unclear why a test failed. Perhaps some critical aspect of the research setting was different, producing an unexpected result. A moderating variable may have impacted the results, such that the findings do not invalidate the theory, but instead provides a nuanced understanding of the conditions that led to a particular effect and those that did not (or led to the opposite effect). Theory should be a guidepost for empirical research, not gospel, upon considering the results. Of course, theory and data can also misalign because the theory is mis-specified. In practice, it can be difficult to discern valid support from false positives and mis-specified predictions from a methodological artifact or undetected moderators. Nevertheless, we envision a future where replication is both more prevalent and more valued.

Communication is an eclectic discipline, and science is not the only method for understanding communication. Further, we as a field draw on and adopt ideas from different fields, authors publish in journals outside of communication research, and there is no singular approach to the same research question. We encourage authors to continue this tolerance and flexibility with exploratory and “pre-theory” work as well. As mentioned, there are times when a good theory simply does not fit one’s phenomenon of interest. Communication scholars should not be faced with a “square peg, round hole” problem just to satisfy reviewers who demand more theory. One can try to fit a square peg into a round hole with enough force, but it will not fit well and there may be important consequences because of this exercise (e.g., theory–data misalignment). Exploratory work should be considered and applauded when we simply do not know how concepts will relate to each other. Proposing a research question instead of hypotheses derived from theory is not an admission of a research study being atheoretical, but instead, an admission of one’s curiosity and uncertainty. Thus, we envision a future where exploratory and descriptive work is more prevalent and more appreciated.

It is also important for authors to think about and explicitly communicate the role of theory in their research. This article has noted the many functions that theory can serve; yet, these functions are often assumed or implied in a manuscript when they could be made explicit. Being forthcoming about the role of theory in one’s research will lead to conceptual and contribution-related clarity. This will lead to less superficial applications of theory (e.g., theoretical name dropping ) and toward more conceptual richness. If communication research is to value theory—and we undoubtedly think it should—then theory should be used appropriately. Theories are built on a foundation of empirical evidence, collected over time allowing researchers to draw nuanced conclusions and make subsequent predictions about human communication. Using the term theory to sound more scientific, rigorous, or grounded is gratuitous and should be avoided. Consequently, we envision a future where communication theory, in form and function, is used more thoughtfully and transparently.

Finally, we are encouraged that all major communication research journals have a large focus on theory in their articles (e.g., at least 50% of articles in each journal mention theory in some manner; Figure 1 ). However, the degree to which the published communication literature is advancing theory in consequential ways or settings is unclear ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ). We encourage scholars to be flexible with their assumptions about a theory, testing it in ways that might be unconventional and creative in the pursuit of new knowledge. To this end, null effects are still informative ( Francis, 2012 ; Levine, 2013 ), especially if a study is adequately powered. For example, understanding what leads to null effects might be helpful for the development of boundary conditions of theory. Null effects are difficult to publish, but communication research can lead in their normalization in the pursuit of greater theoretical precision and explication. Thus, we envision a future where researchers are more frank about empirical support, and more precise with predictions.

Data related to Figure 1 can be retrieved from Markowitz et al. (2021) or by contacting David M. Markowitz.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors also report no conflicts of interest with the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

A systematic, qualitative review of how theory terms were used across the entire sample is beyond the scope of this commentary. We used these data to descriptively demonstrate how theory is prevalent in communication research, and used as a means to achieve different ends.

Bem D. ( 2003 ). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley J. M. , Zanna M. P. (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). (pp. 185–219). American Psychological Association .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Berger C. R. ( 1991 ). Communication theories and other curios . Communication Monographs , 58 ( 1 ), 101 – 113 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376216

Berlo D. K. ( 1960 ). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice . Holt, Rinehart and Winston .

Chaffee S. H. , Berger C. R. ( 1987 ). What communication scientists do. In Berger C. R. , Chaffee S. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 99 – 122 ). Sage .

Cialdini R. B. ( 2006 ). Influence: The psychology of persuasion . Harper Business .

Coppock A. , Leeper T. J. , Mullinix K. J. ( 2018 ). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 ( 49 ), 12441 – 12446 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115

Cronbach L. J. , Meehl P. E. ( 1955 ). Construct validity in psychological tests . Psychological Bulletin , 52 ( 4 ), 281 – 302 . https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Denworth L. ( 2019 ). The significant problem of p-values . Scientific American . https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1019-62

DeAndrea D. C. , Holbert L. R. ( 2017 ) Increasing clarity where it is needed most: Articulating and evaluating theoretical contributions . Annals of the International Communication Association , 41 ( 2 ), 168 – 180 . https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1304163

Dienlin T. , Johannes N. , Bowman N. D. , Masur P. K. , Engesser S. , Kümpel A. S. , Lukito J. , Bier L. M. , Zhang R. , Johnson B. K. , Huskey R. , Schneider F. M. , Breuer J. , Parry D. A. , Vermeulen I. , Fisher J. T. , Banks J. , Weber R. , Ellis D. A. , de Vreese C. ( 2021 ). An agenda for open science in communication . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 1 ), 1 – 26 . https://doi.org/10.1093/JOC/JQZ052

Ewoldsen D. R. ( 2022 ). A discussion of falsifiability and evaluating research: Issues of variance accounted for and external validity . Asian Communication Research , 19 ( 2 ), 5 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.20879/acr.2022.19.2.5

Ferguson C. J. , Heene M. ( 2012 ). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 ( 6 ), 555 – 561 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059

Francis G. ( 2012 ). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 19 ( 6 ), 975 – 991 . https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y

Henrich J. , Heine S. J. , Norenzayan A. ( 2010 ). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33 ( 2–3 ), 61 – 83 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Journal of Communication . ( 2022 ). Author instructions . Oxford Academic . https://academic.oup.com/joc/pages/General_Instructions

Levine T. R. ( 2013 ). A defense of publishing nonsignificant (ns) results . Communication Research Reports , 30 ( 3 ), 270 – 274 . https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013.806261

Levine T. R. , McCornack S. A. ( 2014 ). Theorizing about deception . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 33 ( 4 ), 431 – 440 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14536397

Levine T. R. , Weber R. ( 2020 ). Unresolved heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Combined construct invalidity, confounding, and other challenges to understanding mean effect sizes . Human Communication Research , 46 ( 2–3 ), 343 – 354 . https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz019

Lewin K. ( 1951 ). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . Harper & Brothers . https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-06769-000

Lewis N. A. ( 2020 ). Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how . Communication Methods and Measures , 14 ( 2 ), 71 – 82 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660

Many Labs 2 . ( 2018 ). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings . Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), 443 – 490 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810

Markowitz D. M. , Song H. , Taylor S. H. ( 2021 ). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 5 ), 739 – 763 . https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030

Meehl P. E. ( 1978 ). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 46 ( 4 ), 806 – 834 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806

Miller G. R. , Nicholson H. E. ( 1976 ). Communication inquiry: A perspective on a process . Addison-Wesley Pub. Co .

Mook D. G. ( 1983 ). In defense of external invalidity . American Psychologist , 38 ( 4 ), 379 – 387 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

Park H. S. , Lee H. E. , Song J. A. ( 2005 ). “ I am sorry to send you spam” Cross-cultural difference in email advertising in Korea and the US . Human Communication Research , 31 ( 3 ), 365 – 398 , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00876.x

Open Science Collaboration . ( 2015 ). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science . Science , 349 ( 6251 ), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Rozeboom W. W. ( 2016 ). Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In Harlow L. L. , Mulaik S. A. , Steiger J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 335–391). Routledge .

Rozin P. ( 2001 ). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5 ( 1 ), 2 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_1

Slater M. D. , Gleason L. S. ( 2012 ). Contributing to theory and knowledge in quantitative communication science . Communication Methods and Measures , 6 ( 4 ), 215 – 236 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.732626

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2958
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Communication Theory

Defining theory.

When we mention the word theory to our students, we often watch their eyes glaze over as if it is the most boring thing we could talk about. Students sometimes have the misperception that theory has absolutely no relevance in their lives. But, did you know that you use and test theories of communication on a daily basis? Whether you know it or not, your theories guide how you communicate. For example, you may have a theory that attractive people are harder to talk to than less attractive people. If you believe this is true, you are probably missing opportunities to get to know entire groups of people.

Our personal theories guide our communication, but there are often problems with them. They generally are not complete or sophisticated enough to help us fully understand the complexities of the communication in which we engage. Therefore, it is essential that we go beyond personal theories to develop and understand ones that guide both our study and performance of communication.

Before we get into the functions theories perform for us, let’s define what we mean by theory. Hoover defined theory as “a set of inter-related propositions that suggest why events occur in the manner that they do” (38). Foss, Foss and Griffin defined theory as, “a way of framing an experience or event—an effort to understand and account for something and the way it functions in the world” (8).

Theories are a way of looking at events, organizing them, and representing them. Take a moment to reflect on the elegant simplicity of these two definitions by Hoover and Foss, Foss and Griffin. Any thoughts or ideas you have about how things work in the world or your life are your personal theories? These theories are essentially you’re framework for how the world works, and guide how you function in the world. You can begin to see how important it is that your theories are solid. As you’ll see, well-developed Communication theories help us better understand and explain the communicative behaviors of ourselves and others.

• Survey of Communication Study. Authored by : Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by : Humboldt State University. Located at : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Communication_Study/Preface . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

5 Ch. 5: Verbal Communication

Ch. 5: verbal communication, learning objectives.

By the end of this chapter, readers should:

• Identify and define basic linguistic terminology used to describe language.
• Understand and explain variations in communication styles and context rules.
• Identify and define the differences between translation and interpretation.
• Discuss the role that language plays in culture.
• Articulate what constitutes competence in intercultural communication.

Key Vocabulary

Linguistics, constitutive rules, regulative rules, sapir-whorf hypothesis, linguistic determinism, linguistic relativity, high-context, low-context, understated, translation, interpretation, intercultural communication competence, world-mindedness, attributional complexity, perception- checking, communication accommodation theory, code-switching.

How do you communicate? How do you think? We use language as a system to create and exchange meaning with one another, and the types of words we use influence both our perceptions and others interpretation of our meanings. Language is one of the more conspicuous expressions of culture. Aside from the obvious differences, vocabularies are actually often built on the cultural experiences of the users.

There are approximately 6500 languages spoken in the world today, but about 2000 of those languages have fewer than 1000 speakers ( www.linguisticsociety.org , 2/10/19).  As of 2018, the top ten languages spoken by approximately half the world’s population are Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, English, Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, and Ladhna or Pundjabi ( www.statista.com , 2/10/19)).  Chinese and Tamil are among the oldest spoken languages in the world (taleninstuut.nl, 2/10/19).

It is estimated that at least half of the world’s languages will become extinct within the next century.  Of the 165 indigenous languages still spoken in North America, only 8 are spoken by as many as 10,000 people.  About 75 are spoken by only a handful of older people, and are believed to be on their way to extinction ( www.linguisticsociety.org , 2/10/19)).  When a language dies, a culture can die with it.  A community’s connection to its past, its traditions, and the links tying people to specific knowledge are abandoned as the community becomes part of a different or larger economic and political order ( www.linguisticsociety.org , 2/10/19).

The Study of Language

Linguistics is the study of language and its structure.  Linguistics deals with the study of particular languages and the search for general properties common to all languages.  It also includes explorations into language variations (i.e. dialects), how languages change over time, how language is stored and processed in the brain, and how children learn language.  The study of linguistics is an important part of intercultural communication.

Areas of research for linguists include phonetics (the study of the production, acoustics, and hearing speech sounds), phonology (the patterning of sounds), morphology (the patterning of words), syntax (the structure of sentences), semantics (meaning), and pragmatic s (language in context).

When you study linguistics, you gain insight into one of the most fundamental parts of being human—the ability to communicate.  You can understand how language works, how it is used, plus how it is developed and changes over time.  Since language is universal to all human interactions, the knowledge attained through linguistics is fundamental to understanding cultures.

Principles of Verbal Communication

Verbal communication is based on several basic principles. In this section, we’ll examine each principle and explore how it influences everyday communication. Whether it’s a simple conversation or a formal presentation, these principles apply to all contexts of communication.

Language Is Arbitrary and Symbolic

Words, by themselves, do not have any inherent meaning. Humans give meaning to them, and their meanings change across time. For example, we negotiate the meaning of the word “home,” and define it, through visual images or dialogue, in order to communicate with our audience.

Words have two types of meanings: denotative and connotative . Attention to both is necessary to reduce the possibility of misinterpretation. The denotative meaning is the common meaning, often found in the dictionary. The connotative meaning is often not found in the dictionary but in the community of users itself. It can involve an emotional association with a word, positive or negative, and can be individual or collective, but is not universal.  An example of this could be the term “rugged individualism” which comes from “rugged” or capable of withstanding rough handling and “individualism” or being independent and self-reliant.  In the United States, describing someone in this way would have a positive connotation, but for people from a collectivistic orientation, it might be the opposite.

But what if we have to transfer meaning from one vocabulary to another? In such cases, language and culture can sometimes make for interesting twists. The  New York Times  Sterngold, J. (11/15/98) noted that the title of the 1998 film  There’s Something About Mary  proved difficult to translate when it was released in foreign markets. In Poland, where blonde jokes are popular and common, the film title (translated back to English for our use) was  For the Love of a Blonde.   In France,  Mary at All Costs  communicated the idea, while in Thailand  My True Love Will Stand All Outrageous Events  dropped the reference to Mary altogether. Capturing ideas with words is a challenge when the intended audience speaks the same language, but across languages and cultures, the challenge becomes intense.

Language Has Rules

Using language means following rules.  Constitutive rules govern the meaning of words, and dictate which words represent which objects (Searle, 1964).  Regulative rules govern how we arrange words into sentences and how we exchange words in oral conversations.  If you don’t know the various rules, you will struggle to communicate clearly and accurately with others.  Consequently, others will also struggle to find meaning in your communication.

Language Evolves

Many people view language as fixed, but in fact, language constantly changes.  As time passes and technology changes, people add new words to their language, repurpose old ones, and discard archaic ones.  New additions to American English in the last few decades include blog , sexting , and selfie .  Repurposed additions to American English include cyberbullying , tweet , and app (from application).  Whereas affright , cannonade , and fain are becoming extinct in modern American English.

Other times, speakers of a language borrow words and phrases from other languages and incorporate them into their own.  Wisconsin, Oregon, and Wyoming were all borrowed from Native American languages.  Typhoon is from Mandarin Chinese, and influenza is from Italian.

Language Shapes Our Thought

Members of a culture use language to communicate their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values with one another, thereby reinforcing their collective sense of cultural identity (Whorf, 1952). Consequently, the language you speak, and the words you choose, announce to others who you are.

What would your life be like if you had been raised in a country other than the one where you grew up? Or suppose you had been born male instead of female, or vice versa. You would have learned another set of customs, values, traditions, other language patterns, and ways of communicating. You would be a different person who communicated in different ways.

It’s not just the words themselves, or even how they are organized, that makes communication such a challenge. The idea that language shapes how we think about our world was first suggested by the research of Edward Sapir, who conducted an intensive study of Native American languages in the early 1900s.  Sapir argues that because language is our primary means of sharing meaning with others, it powerfully effects how we perceive others and our relationships with them (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996).  About 50 years later, Benjamin Lee Whorf expanded on Sapir’s ideas in what has become known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or what is known today as linguistic determinism .  Whorf argued that we cannot conceive of that for which we lack a vocabulary or that language quite literally defines the boundaries of our thinking.

Contemporary scholars noted that linguistic determinism suggests that our ability to think is constrained by language (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996) and therefore not realistic.  Yet, both Sapir and Whorf, along with contemporary scholars, recognize the dramatic impact that culture has on language.  Because language influences our thoughts, and different people from different cultures use different languages, most communication scholars agree that people from different cultures would perceive and think about the world in very different ways.  This effect is known as linguistic relativity .  Your language itself, ever changing and growing, in many ways determines your reality.

Cultural Variations in Language

  As has been established, language is not culture free.  If your intercultural communication is to be effective, you cannot ignore the broader cultural context that gives words meaning.  We’ve discussed the linguistic issues of language, but what about the cultural issues of language?  Cultural competency is a kind of knowledge of all of the other systems of ideas and beliefs shared by members of a community and transmitted through language (Bentahila & Davies, 1989).  Cultural knowledge can keep second language learners from producing perfectly grammatically correct language yet embarrassingly inappropriate sentences.

Cultural rules about when and how certain speech acts can be performed may differ greatly.  Routine formulas such as greetings, leave-taking, thanking, apologizing and so on do not follow the same, or even similar rules, across cultures causing misunderstandings and confusion.  How language is used in a particular culture is strongly related to the values a culture emphasizes, and how it believes that the relations between humans ought to be.

Attitudes Towards Speaking, Silence, and Writing

In some cultures, such as the United States, speech is highly valued, and it is important to be articulate and well-spoken in personal as well as public settings.  People in these cultures tend to  use language as a powerful tool to discover and express truth, as well as to extend themselves and have an impact on others.  Such countries tend to take silence as a sign of indifference, indignation, objection, and even hostility.  The silence confuses and confounds them since it is so different from expected behavior.  Many are even embarrassed by silence, and feel compelled to fill the silence with words so they are no longer uncomfortable.  Or if a question is not answered immediately, people are concerned that the speaker may think that they do not know the answer.  Countries reflecting these attitudes would include the United States, Canada, Italy, and other Western European countries.

Silence in some Asian cultures can be a sign of respect.  If a person asks a question, it is polite to demonstrate that you have reflected on the question before providing an answer.  In differences of opinion, it is often thought that saying nothing is better than offending the other side, which would cause both parties to lose face.  Sometimes words do not convey ideas, but instead become barriers.  Silence can convey the real intention of the speakers and can be interpreted according to the expected possibilities for speech or have more profound meaning than words.

In hierarchical cultures, speaking is often the right of the most senior or oldest person so others are expected to remain silent or only speak when spoken to and asked to corroborate information.  In listening cultures, silence is a way to keep exchanges calm and orderly.  In collectivistic cultures, it is polite to remain silent when your opinion does not agree with that of the group.  In some African and Native American cultures, silence is seen as a way of enjoying someone’s company without a need to fill every moment with noise.  Or silence could simply be a case of the person having to speak in another language, and taking their time to reply.

The act of writing also varies widely in value from culture to culture.  In the United States written contracts are considered more powerful and binding than oral consent.  A common question is “did you get that in writing?”  The relationship between writing and speaking is an important reinforcement of commitment.  Other cultures tend to value oral communication over written communication or even a handshake over words.

Variations in Communication Styles

Communication style refers to both verbal and nonverbal communication along with language.  Problems sometimes arise when people from different cultures try to communicate, and they tend to “fail to recognize the conventionality of the communicative code of the other, instead taking the communicative behavior as representing what it means in their own native culture”  (Loveday, 1986).  An understanding of communication style differences helps listeners understand how to interpret verbal messages.

• High Context cultures, such as China, Japan, and South Korea, are those in which people assume that others within their culture will share their viewpoints and thus understand situations in much the same way.  Consequently, people in such cultures often talk indirectly, using hints or suggestions to convey meaning with the thought that others will know what is being expressed.  In high context cultures, what is not said is just as important, if not more important, than what is said.  High context cultures are very often collectivistic as well.
• Low context cultures on the other hand are those in which people do NOT presume that others share their beliefs, values, and behaviors so they tend to be more verbally informative and direct in their communication (Hall & Hall, 1987).  Many low context cultures are individualist so people openly express their views, and tend to make important information obvious to others.
• Direct/Indirect styles are closely related to high/low context communication, but not exactly the same.  Context refers to the assumption that speakers are homogeneous enough to share or implicitly understand the meanings associated with contexts.  Whereas, direct/indirect refers directly to verbal strategies.
• Direct styles are those in which verbal messages reveal the speaker’s true intentions, needs, wants, and desires.  The focus is on accomplishing a task.  The message is clear, and to the point without hidden intentions or implied meanings.  The communication tends to be impersonal.  Conflict is discussed openly and people say what they think.  In the United States, business correspondence is expected to be short and to the point. “What can I do for you?” is a common question when a business person receives a call from a stranger; it is an accepted way of asking the caller to state his or her business.
• Indirect styles are those in which communication is often designed to hide or minimize the speaker’s true intentions, needs, wants, and desires.  Communication tends to be personal and focuses on the relationship between the speakers.  The language may be subtle, and the speaker may be looking for a “softer” way to communicate there is a problem by providing many contextual cues.  A hidden meaning may be embedded into the message because harmony and “saving face” is more important than truth and confrontation.  In indirect cultures, such as those in Latin America, business conversations may start with discussions of the weather, or family, or topics other than business as the partners gain a sense of each other, long before the topic of business is raised.
• Elaborate and Understated communication styles refer to the quantity of talk that a culture values and is related to attitudes towards speech and silence.
• Elaborate styles of communication refers to the use of rich and expressive language in everyday conversation.  The French, Latin Americans, Africans, and Arabs tend to use exaggerated communication because in their cultures, simple statements may be interpreted to mean the exact opposite.
• Understated communication styles values simple understatement, simple assertions, and silence.  People who speak sparingly tend to be trusted more than people who speak a lot.  Prudent word choice allows an individual to be socially discreet, gain social acceptance, and avoid social penalty.  In Japan, the pleasure of a conversation lies “not in discussion (a logical game), but in emotional exchange” (Nakane, 1970) with the purpose of social harmony (Barnlund, 1975).

Variations in Context Rules of Communication Styles

While there are differences in the preferred communication styles used by various cultures, it is important to remember that no particular culture will use the same communication style all the time.  When a person either emphasizes or minimizes the differences between himself /herself and the other person in conversation, it is called code-switching .  In other words, it’s the practice of shifting the language that you use to better express yourself in conversations.  According to communication accommodation theory (Auer, 1998) this can include, but is not limited to, language, accent, dialect, and vocalics or paralanguage.

There are many reasons why people may incorporate code-switching in their conversations. People, consciously and unconsciously, code-switch to better reflect the speech of those around them, such as picking up a southern accent when vacationing in Georgia.  Sometimes people code-switch to ingratiate themselves to others.  What teenager hasn’t used the formal language of their parents when asking for a favor like borrowing the car or asking for money?  Code-switching can also be used to express solidarity, gratitude, group identity, compliance gaining, or even to maintain the exact meaning of a word in a language that is not their own.

Language & Power

It has been said that all language is powerful and all power is rooted in language (Russell, 1938).  Those who speak the same language not only can make themselves understood to one another, but the ability to make oneself understood promotes a feeling of belonging together .  The identity-forming power of language is incredibly significant.  Based on language, individuals will form small or large social groups that become societies, states, and nations.  (Goethe-Institut, 2/11/19)

Co-cultural groups will be impacted differently by language and social position within a dominant culture or language group.  One’s social position influences how one interprets a communication context or how one is viewed by others within a dominant language group.  Co-cultural groups are often expected to adopt or adapt to the dominant communication strategies.

Politics & Policies

Language management is going on all the time.  Language policy is deeply embedded in beliefs people have about language, and centers around the question of who has the ability or the authority to make choices where language is concerned, and whose choices will ultimately prevail.  This could manifest in official governmental recognition of a language, how language is used in official capacities, or protect the rights of how groups use and maintain languages.

Language policies are connected to the politics of class, culture, ethnicity, and economics. While some nations have one or more official language, the United States does not have an official legal language.  Much debate has been raised about the issue, and twenty-seven states have passed Official English laws (USConstitution.net, 2/12/19). English is only the de facto national language.  The European Union has 23 official languages, while recognizing over 60 indigenous languages.

Moving Between Languages – Translation & Interpretation

Because no one can learn every language, we rely on translators and interpreters.  On the surface level, translation and interpretation seem to be much the same thing, with one skill relying on written texts and the other occurring orally.  Both translation and interpretation enable communication across language boundaries from source to target .  Both need deep cultural and linguistic understanding along with expert knowledge of the subject area and the ability to communicate clearly, but this is where the similarities end.

• Translation generally involves the process of producing a written text that refers to something written in another language.  Traditionally, the translator would read the source in its original language, decipher its meaning, then write, rewrite, and proofread the content in the target language to ensure the original meaning, style and content are preserved.  Some translators use computer-aided tools to convert the source into a file type for electronic translation, then proof-read each section of the text for quality of content, meaning, and style in the target language.  Translators are often experts in their fields of knowledge as well as linguists fluent in two or more languages with excellent written communication skills.
• Interpretation is the process of orally expressing what is said or written in another language.  Contrary to popular belief, interpretation isn’t a word-for-word translation of a spoken message.  If it was, it wouldn’t make sense to the target audience.  Interpreters need to transpose the source language within the given context, preserving its original meaning, but rephrasing idioms, colloquialisms, and other culturally-specific references in ways that the target audience can understand.  They may have to do this in a simultaneous manner to the original speaker or by speaking only during the breaks provided by the original speaker.  Interpreters are also often experts in fields of knowledge, cultures, and languages with excellent memories.

The roles of translators and interpreters are very complex.  Not everyone who has levels of fluency in two languages makes a good translator or interpreter .  Complex relationships between people, intercultural situations, and intercultural contexts involve more than just language fluency, but rather culture fluency.

Intercultural Communication Competence

  Has learning about another culture changed or enhanced your impressions for the better?  The gateway to such connections is intercultural communication competence.   Another way to view intercultural communication competence is the ability to communicate and behave in appropriate ways with those who are culturally different.  You are interculturally competent  when you adapt to cultural difference by co-creating spaces, teams, and organizations that are inclusive, effective, innovative, and satisfying.  You can strengthen your intercultural communication competence by becoming more world-minded, practicing attributional complexity, and understanding communication accommodation theory.

World-Mindedness

  By possessing world-mindedness, you demonstrated acceptance and respect toward other cultures’ beliefs, values, and customs or worldviews (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003; Merryfield, et al (2008).  Practicing world-mindedness happens in three ways.  First, you must accept others’ expression of their culture or co-culture as a natural element of their communication patterns (Chen & Starosa, 2005).  Second, you should avoid any temptation to judge others’ worldviews as “better” or “worse” than your own.  Third, treat people from all cultures with respect.

By practicing world-mindedness, you are more than just tolerating cultural differences that you find perplexing or problematic, you are preserving others’ dignity.  World-mindedness is the opposite of ethnocentrism or the belief that one’s own cultural beliefs, attitudes, values, and practices are superior to others’. Ethnocentrism is not the same thing as patriotism or pride in your own cultural heritage.  You can be patriotic and proud of your own heritage without being ethnocentric !  Ethnocentrism is a comparative evaluation where people view their own culture or co-culture as the standard against which all other cultures should be judged (Sumner, 1906; Neulip & McCroskey, 1997).  Consequently, such people tend to view themselves as competent communicators and people from other cultures as incompetent communicators.

Attributional Complexity

Practicing attributional complexity means that you acknowledge that other people’s behaviors have complex causes.  You have the ability to observe others’ behavior and analyze the various forces that might be influencing it.  For example, rather than deciding that a reserved classmate is unfriendly, you might consider cultural theories about communication styles, and language usage before passing judgment.

In addition, you might check you might want to check your understanding of someone’s words or behaviors.  This is called perception-checking, and it’s used to help us decode messages more accurately by avoiding assuming too much.  Perception-checking is a three-part process that includes description, interpretation, and clarification.   First, you should provide a description of the behavior that you noticed.  For example, “you walked out of the room without saying anything.”  Second, you should provide one or two possible interpretations.  Such as, “I didn’t know if you were mad at me or if you were in a hurry.”  And thirdly, you should request clarification from the person about the behavior and your interpretation.  As in, “could you help me understand this from your point of view?”

Perception-checking helps us try to see things from another perspective.  It allows us to examine how people from other cultural backgrounds make decisions and allows us to make comparisons of their approaches to ours.  And finally, it allows others to explain the reasons for their behavior and allows us to validate their explanations rather than challenging them.

Communication Accommodation

  The last way to strive for intercultural communication competence is to embrace communication accommodation theory by meshing your communication with the behaviors of people from other cultures.  People are especially motivated to adapt their communication when they see social approval, when they wish to establish relationships with others, and when they view the language use of others as appropriate (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991).  In contrast, when people wish to convey emotional distance and disassociate themselves from others, the accentuate the differences through communication.

So what does this mean for intercultural communicators?  Try adapting to other people’s communication preferences (Bianconi, 2002).  Notice how long a turn people take when speaking, how quickly or slowly they speak, how direct or indirect they are, and how much they appear to want to talk compared to you.  You may also need to learn and practice cultural norms for nonverbal behaviors, including eye contact, power distance, and touch.  Use caution to avoid inappropriate imitation though.  Mimicking could be considered disrespectful in some cultural contexts, whereas an honest desire to learn is often interpreted positively on the road to intercultural communication competence.

References:

Intercultural Communication for the Community College Copyright © 2019 by Karen Krumrey-Fulks is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: How Language Influences How We Express Ourselves

Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

Thomas Barwick / Getty Images

What to Know About the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Real-world examples of linguistic relativity, linguistic relativity in psychology.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, refers to the idea that the language a person speaks can influence their worldview, thought, and even how they experience and understand the world.

While more extreme versions of the hypothesis have largely been discredited, a growing body of research has demonstrated that language can meaningfully shape how we understand the world around us and even ourselves.

Keep reading to learn more about linguistic relativity, including some real-world examples of how it shapes thoughts, emotions, and behavior.  

The hypothesis is named after anthropologist and linguist Edward Sapir and his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf. While the hypothesis is named after them both, the two never actually formally co-authored a coherent hypothesis together.

This Hypothesis Aims to Figure Out How Language and Culture Are Connected

Sapir was interested in charting the difference in language and cultural worldviews, including how language and culture influence each other. Whorf took this work on how language and culture shape each other a step further to explore how different languages might shape thought and behavior.

Since then, the concept has evolved into multiple variations, some more credible than others.

Linguistic Determinism Is an Extreme Version of the Hypothesis

Linguistic determinism, for example, is a more extreme version suggesting that a person’s perception and thought are limited to the language they speak. An early example of linguistic determinism comes from Whorf himself who argued that the Hopi people in Arizona don’t conjugate verbs into past, present, and future tenses as English speakers do and that their words for units of time (like “day” or “hour”) were verbs rather than nouns.

From this, he concluded that the Hopi don’t view time as a physical object that can be counted out in minutes and hours the way English speakers do. Instead, Whorf argued, the Hopi view time as a formless process.

This was then taken by others to mean that the Hopi don’t have any concept of time—an extreme view that has since been repeatedly disproven.

There is some evidence for a more nuanced version of linguistic relativity, which suggests that the structure and vocabulary of the language you speak can influence how you understand the world around you. To understand this better, it helps to look at real-world examples of the effects language can have on thought and behavior.

Different Languages Express Colors Differently

Color is one of the most common examples of linguistic relativity. Most known languages have somewhere between two and twelve color terms, and the way colors are categorized varies widely. In English, for example, there are distinct categories for blue and green .

Blue and Green

But in Korean, there is one word that encompasses both. This doesn’t mean Korean speakers can’t see blue, it just means blue is understood as a variant of green rather than a distinct color category all its own.

In Russian, meanwhile, the colors that English speakers would lump under the umbrella term of “blue” are further subdivided into two distinct color categories, “siniy” and “goluboy.” They roughly correspond to light blue and dark blue in English. But to Russian speakers, they are as distinct as orange and brown .

In one study comparing English and Russian speakers, participants were shown a color square and then asked to choose which of the two color squares below it was the closest in shade to the first square.

The test specifically focused on varying shades of blue ranging from “siniy” to “goluboy.” Russian speakers were not only faster at selecting the matching color square but were more accurate in their selections.

The Way Location Is Expressed Varies Across Languages

This same variation occurs in other areas of language. For example, in Guugu Ymithirr, a language spoken by Aboriginal Australians, spatial orientation is always described in absolute terms of cardinal directions. While an English speaker would say the laptop is “in front of” you, a Guugu Ymithirr speaker would say it was north, south, west, or east of you.

As a result, Aboriginal Australians have to be constantly attuned to cardinal directions because their language requires it (just as Russian speakers develop a more instinctive ability to discern between shades of what English speakers call blue because their language requires it).

So when you ask a Guugu Ymithirr speaker to tell you which way south is, they can point in the right direction without a moment’s hesitation. Meanwhile, most English speakers would struggle to accurately identify South without the help of a compass or taking a moment to recall grade school lessons about how to find it.

The concept of these cardinal directions exists in English, but English speakers aren’t required to think about or use them on a daily basis so it’s not as intuitive or ingrained in how they orient themselves in space.

Just as with other aspects of thought and perception, the vocabulary and grammatical structure we have for thinking about or talking about what we feel doesn’t create our feelings, but it does shape how we understand them and, to an extent, how we experience them.

Words Help Us Put a Name to Our Emotions

For example, the ability to detect displeasure from a person’s face is universal. But in a language that has the words “angry” and “sad,” you can further distinguish what kind of displeasure you observe in their facial expression. This doesn’t mean humans never experienced anger or sadness before words for them emerged. But they may have struggled to understand or explain the subtle differences between different dimensions of displeasure.

In one study of English speakers, toddlers were shown a picture of a person with an angry facial expression. Then, they were given a set of pictures of people displaying different expressions including happy, sad, surprised, scared, disgusted, or angry. Researchers asked them to put all the pictures that matched the first angry face picture into a box.

The two-year-olds in the experiment tended to place all faces except happy faces into the box. But four-year-olds were more selective, often leaving out sad or fearful faces as well as happy faces. This suggests that as our vocabulary for talking about emotions expands, so does our ability to understand and distinguish those emotions.

But some research suggests the influence is not limited to just developing a wider vocabulary for categorizing emotions. Language may “also help constitute emotion by cohering sensations into specific perceptions of ‘anger,’ ‘disgust,’ ‘fear,’ etc.,” said Dr. Harold Hong, a board-certified psychiatrist at New Waters Recovery in North Carolina.

As our vocabulary for talking about emotions expands, so does our ability to understand and distinguish those emotions.

Words for emotions, like words for colors, are an attempt to categorize a spectrum of sensations into a handful of distinct categories. And, like color, there’s no objective or hard rule on where the boundaries between emotions should be which can lead to variation across languages in how emotions are categorized.

Emotions Are Categorized Differently in Different Languages

Just as different languages categorize color a little differently, researchers have also found differences in how emotions are categorized. In German, for example, there’s an emotion called “gemütlichkeit.”

While it’s usually translated as “cozy” or “ friendly ” in English, there really isn’t a direct translation. It refers to a particular kind of peace and sense of belonging that a person feels when surrounded by the people they love or feel connected to in a place they feel comfortable and free to be who they are.

Harold Hong, MD, Psychiatrist

The lack of a word for an emotion in a language does not mean that its speakers don't experience that emotion.

You may have felt gemütlichkeit when staying up with your friends to joke and play games at a sleepover. You may feel it when you visit home for the holidays and spend your time eating, laughing, and reminiscing with your family in the house you grew up in.

In Japanese, the word “amae” is just as difficult to translate into English. Usually, it’s translated as "spoiled child" or "presumed indulgence," as in making a request and assuming it will be indulged. But both of those have strong negative connotations in English and amae is a positive emotion .

Instead of being spoiled or coddled, it’s referring to that particular kind of trust and assurance that comes with being nurtured by someone and knowing that you can ask for what you want without worrying whether the other person might feel resentful or burdened by your request.

You might have felt amae when your car broke down and you immediately called your mom to pick you up, without having to worry for even a second whether or not she would drop everything to help you.

Regardless of which languages you speak, though, you’re capable of feeling both of these emotions. “The lack of a word for an emotion in a language does not mean that its speakers don't experience that emotion,” Dr. Hong explained.

What This Means For You

“While having the words to describe emotions can help us better understand and regulate them, it is possible to experience and express those emotions without specific labels for them.” Without the words for these feelings, you can still feel them but you just might not be able to identify them as readily or clearly as someone who does have those words. 

Rhee S. Lexicalization patterns in color naming in Korean . In: Raffaelli I, Katunar D, Kerovec B, eds. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Vol 78. John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2019:109-128. Doi:10.1075/sfsl.78.06rhe

Winawer J, Witthoft N, Frank MC, Wu L, Wade AR, Boroditsky L. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(19):7780-7785.  10.1073/pnas.0701644104

Lindquist KA, MacCormack JK, Shablack H. The role of language in emotion: predictions from psychological constructionism . Front Psychol. 2015;6. Doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00444

By Rachael Green Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Marketing91

Communication Theory: Definition, Framework and Theories

June 9, 2023 | By Hitesh Bhasin | Filed Under: Management

The communication theory is a simple statement proposed by S. F. Scudder that all living beings communicate through different communication methods.

Table of Contents

What is Communication Theory?

Every living organism communicates to another living organism of his kind through a unique communication method. For example, animals communicate with each other but use different sounds; humans interact with each other with the help of different words, letters, symbols, pictures, or gestures.

The need for communication is present in every living being, and without communication, we would not exist and be like bricks lying around – without movement and life.

The Framework of Communication Theory

The following are a few of the points of the communication theory framework.

1. Mechanical

This point says that communication is a mechanical process that passes from one location to the other. It is a well-established fact that the one end is defined as the sender from which the communication originates, and the receiver is where the communication terminates.

2. Psychological

According to this view, communication is considered a flow of feelings, thoughts, and information from the sender to the receiver. However, a psychological viewpoint on communications also believes that communication flows from one point to the other that is from the sender to the receiver’s ability.

This viewpoint model also takes into consideration the reactions and attitudes of the receiver after the communication is received and understood.

Communication is a social process since in practice it involves the interaction of more than one person trying to communicate with another person. The social point of view says that communication is dependent on the content or message. Not only “what” but also “how” a message is communicated essential.

4. Systemic

This viewpoint says that communication is unique and dependent on the interpretation of messages by the individual. The receiver is responsible for deriving his conclusion irrespective of the meaning with which the sender has sent.

5. Critical

This point of view says that communication is a medium in which a person can express himself, speak, or exert authority in a group of people.

Theories of Communication

1. classical theories.

Authoritarian Theory

This theory originated from Plato’s authoritarian philosophy, and it stated that only a few men should be allowed to manage the state. It also says that mass media is expected to follow the directives of the country even though the state does not control the mass media directly.

The thought of freedom was restricted by a few people from the ruling class or upper class in western Europe under the same Authoritarian approach. Their primary concern was the emerging middle class, which necessitated them to take steps to control speech freedom.

The term authoritarian itself explains the inclusion of authority in communication, which was regulated and suppressed. Ultimately and to no one’s surprise, this resulted in the emergence of dictatorship.

The fact that a nation is more important than everything else was used to establish supremacy over the press.

Free Press Theory

This theory is also termed Libertarianism, and it is based on a simple principle that justifies its name, which is the absence of restraint. The free press originated in the 17th century when the printing press was discovered newly, and printing was relatively inexpensive.

Government taxes were not welcomed by libertarian, and people’s opinion was prioritized over government decisions.

Social Responsibility Theory

Since many people criticized the free press theory, the social responsibility theory was born. They found that free press theory was outdated and should be re-invented. The social responsibility theory was initiated in America in 1949.

The approach is based mainly on the media since people found out that only a few people were benefited because of libertarianism theory, while most of them were not. There were many means by which accountability was held like radio, television, etc.

This theory emphasizes the responsibility of the media towards society.

2. Communist Theory

The basis of this theory was the research findings and ideologies of Karl Marx. This theory said that the doctrines of the aristocratic class or the ruling class are the ruling ideas. It was Lenin who first thought of communist theory since he believed that the freedom of the press and political science should be controlled.

Education was considered to be the primary and the only purpose of Mass media. It was thought that the media should educate the people rather than trying to give out information theory. Media was seen as a means of knowledge promotion.

3. Development Communication Theory

The primary ideology which initiated the rise of this theory stated that communication is the only source of development, and without effective communication itself, there would be no development whatsoever.

Capitalism was legalized under the four classic series. But in the case of development communication theory, the media is supposed to undertake the role of developmental programs for society.

Apart from society’s development, there can be no other significant role for the media, which was emphasized by this theory. However, UNESCO did not support this theory since development is often equated to government propaganda, according to this theory.

4. Hypodermic Needle or Magic Bullet or Stimulus-response Theory

This theory came into existence during the first world war. The real power of media was described by this theory, which said that mass media has enormous control and influence over the mass of audience members.

The hypodermic needle theory also supported the fact that mass media can alter the thoughts and behaviors of the people. Selective exposure and selective perception the two main reasons responsible for the effects of mass communication.

The tendency of people that what is the percentage by which people expose themselves to mass media is called selective exposure. And the inclination of people to assign a meaning to mass communication according to their pre-notions is called selective perception and retention.

5. Standpoint Theory

Every person belongs to a different social category. The standpoint theory, supporting this, states that every person has a different rank in the social group. This results in every person having different views resulting from a different experience.

This individual’s perspective provides only a very close look at the social power structure. People in the lower category of social hierarchy tend to have a better view and a better understanding of the social system than people who are up in the hierarchy.

6. Actor-network Theory

This theory is commonly abbreviated as ANT. This theory suggests that both the actor and the network are responsible for success. According to this theory, both human and nonhuman factors are equally accountable for technological innovation and the knowledge creation process.

The actor-network theory primarily focuses on the forming of the network. Once these networks are formed, the Actor-network theory focuses on how they can contribute to success.

7. Adaptive Structuration Theory

This theory is entirely based on the structures formed because of the rules and regulations of groups and organizations. Once the structures are built, they become sound social systems that have a life of their own.

These structures are directly affected by the decision making process.

8. Cognitive Dissonance Theory

The psychological conflict, which is the result of contradictory thoughts, is called cognitive dissonance. For example, a person likes a phone but does not support the price of the product.

The theory states that every person concerned will look for balanced beliefs. This is why to avoid cognitive dissonance; a person will refrain from hearing any contrasting views to his views.

9. Constructivism

Cognitively sophisticated people will be successful communicators since they can create advanced messages for other people. They also can target, communicate and perceive more than one communication goal successfully.

10. Confirmation Bias

Every person understands and interprets the world differently. This theory explains the reason why people see the world differently. The thoughts or information which reinforces the beliefs of the people are accepted, and the others are rejected.

11. Cultivation Theory

This theory believes that most of us believe today that media influences a person’s sense of reality.  Most of the people are unable to acquire everyday life experience by the direct communications medium. For example, you cannot be present at every news that is happening around the world.

Therefore this theory suggests that the viewpoint that you have developed is from mediated sources and not by direct experience. Thus your thoughts and feelings are influenced.

12. Face Negotiation Theory

The differences in conflicts between individualistic and collectivist cultures are highlighted in the face negotiation theory.

As the name suggests, the individualistic approach tries to protect the self and adopt dominating styles of relationship and conflict. Still, collectivist culture values the group and fosters the conflict style, which integrates or avoids to give others a mutual face.

13. Spiral of Silence Theory

This theory suggests that the media publish opinions, and people modify or adjust their views to avoid being isolated. People who think that their opinions will get accepted will voice their opinions freely, and people who do not express their opinions suppress them. These people, with a suppressed point of view, are called minorities.

14. Diffusion of Innovation Theory

Neil Gross and Bryce Ryan developed this theory in the year 1943. This theory stresses the process by which different channels communicate new ideas and concepts to different people. This model also describes various factors that influence people’s thoughts and actions about the original design or technology.

15. Theory of Planned Behavior

This theory states that personal judgments and social considerations influence a person’s intentions to execute a particular action or behavior. The Third element, which affects a person’s intention, is perceived control. This form of judgment states that how people perceive a particular behavior is easy or difficult to perform.

16. Agenda-setting Theory

As the name suggests, the agenda is decided and then set. This theory believes that it is the responsibility of Mass media to determine what should be considered as worthy of news and what should not be for the general population.

This theory also goes on to state how much attention a particular news story should receive. The term salience transfer is used to determine the agenda transferring ability of the media.

17. Theory of Reasoned Action

This theory considers the fact that a person’s intentions can influence his behaviors. There are two reasons for this which tell a person if he should perform particular behavior or not: personal judgments and social considerations. Both of these elements are also repeated in the theory of planned behavior.

Personal judgment is how a particular person perceives the action, and social concerns state what someone believes that others should do.

18. Media Dependency Theory

This theory states that people are entirely dependent on the media to reach their goals and meet their needs. They believe that the media interacts with people to create interests, needs, and motives.

The amount of dependency which is influenced depends on the number and centrality of the information.

19. Communication Accommodation Theory

Often it is seen that people change their communication or adjust their style of communication with other people. Communication accumulation theory believes the same. The changes in communication may be in verbal or non-verbal forms.

This is done by convergence and divergence. Some individuals make use of convergence to seek social approval and also focus on matching their communication style to that of the person with whom they are speaking.

On the other hand, divergence language is primarily used to highlight the differences in the group. Often, a deviation is used by influential ethnic people or groups of racial pride.

Therefore, communication theories are an essential part of the human communication process as well as the society since many theories are a reflection of society.

The existence of different types of communication theories suggests variation in the application critical theories of communication in society as well as differences in society.

Liked this post? Check out the complete series on Communication

Related posts:

• Theory X and theory Y of Management: Meaning, Differences & Application
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX Theory) Explained
• Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation (Two-Factor Theory)
• Six Thinking Hats: Definition, Benefits & Framework Explained
• Planned Change: Definition, Theories, Effects and Steps
• What is Motivation? Definition, Theories and Types
• The Six Box Model by Marvin Weisbord – Six Box Framework
• Decision Making Framework – Types & Classifications
• Different Types of Leadership Theories
• Power – Role in Management, Meaning, Theories and Sources

About Hitesh Bhasin

Hitesh Bhasin is the CEO of Marketing91 and has over a decade of experience in the marketing field. He is an accomplished author of thousands of insightful articles, including in-depth analyses of brands and companies. Holding an MBA in Marketing, Hitesh manages several offline ventures, where he applies all the concepts of Marketing that he writes about.

All Knowledge Banks (Hub Pages)

• Marketing Hub
• Management Hub
• Marketing Strategy
• Advertising Hub
• Branding Hub
• Market Research
• Small Business Marketing
• Sales and Selling
• Marketing Careers
• Internet Marketing
• Business Model of Brands
• Marketing Mix of Brands
• Brand Competitors
• Strategy of Brands
• SWOT of Brands
• Customer Management
• Top 10 Lists

excellent and highly appreciable

I felt the reading

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• About Marketing91
• Marketing91 Team
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Terms of Use
• Editorial Policy

WE WRITE ON

• Digital Marketing
• Human Resources
• Operations Management
• Marketing News
• Marketing mix's
• Competitors

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of hypothesis

Did you know.

The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

• proposition
• supposition

hypothesis , theory , law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.

law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions.

Examples of hypothesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'hypothesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do

1641, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

Phrases Containing hypothesis

• counter - hypothesis
• nebular hypothesis
• null hypothesis
• planetesimal hypothesis
• Whorfian hypothesis

Articles Related to hypothesis

This is the Difference Between a...

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

In scientific reasoning, they're two completely different things

Dictionary Entries Near hypothesis

hypothermia

hypothesize

Cite this Entry

“Hypothesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis. Accessed 21 Apr. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of hypothesis, medical definition, medical definition of hypothesis, more from merriam-webster on hypothesis.

Nglish: Translation of hypothesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of hypothesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about hypothesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day, noblesse oblige.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 19, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), a great big list of bread words, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), games & quizzes.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.4: What Is a Theory?

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58700

Learning Objectives

• Define “theory”
• Identify the functions of theories
• Evaluate the practicality of using theories

“There is nothing so practical as a good theory.”

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

Philip K. Dick

“Can I make it through that intersection before the light turns red?” “Will I have enough money left at the end of the month to take my honey out to dinner at a nice restaurant?” “Can I trust my office mate to keep a secret?” Every day we apply conceptions of how the world works to make decisions and answer questions like these.

Many of these conceptions are based on our own past experiences, what other people have told us, what we’ve read or viewed online, and so on. Sometimes the conceptions are clearly present in our minds as we act; other times they lie beneath our awareness. In reality, the conceptions may represent a hodgepodge of fact, fiction, hunches, conjectures, wishes, and assumptions. And they may change over time for reasons we may or may not even be able to identify.

We may informally refer to these kinds of conceptions as “theories.” For instance, we might say, “He made a big mistake when he did that. My theory is that he was under a lot of stress because of getting laid off from his job.” In studying communication, however, we make use of a more refined definition of the term “theory” which is anything but a hodgepodge.

Defining “Theory”

Hoover, Hoover, K. R. (1984). The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking (3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 38. straightforwardly defined a theory as “a set of interrelated propositions that suggest why events occur in the manner that they do.” According to the National Academy of Sciences, Boss, J. (2010). Think; Critical Thinking for Everyday Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 379. a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Similar definitions have been put forth by other authorities. All the definitions, however, describe theories as products of intellectual activity and as sources of insight into interpreting phenomena.

Some theories are solid and universally accepted. Examples include the heliocentric theory and germ theory. It’s assumed that these theories require no further testing or evidence to continue to be accepted.

Other more provisional theories, such as string theory in physics or self-efficacy theory in psychology, require continual exploration and testing in order to be supported and retained. Theories are never to be regarded as factual, but rather as models which conform to facts as closely as possible.

Functions of Theory

So—what can theories do for us? Their main function is to help us make sense of phenomena, including human behavior. They help us answer “why” and “how” questions about the world. More specifically, they can fulfill three major functions.

The first function is explanation. Theories can help us understand why entities—physical objects, processes, or people—behave the way they do, individually or in interactions with each other.

The second function is “postdiction.” Theories can help us interpret specific past incidents and events and account for why they would be expected to happen as they did. Thus, they give us an assurance that order exists in at least part of the world.

The final function is prediction, whereby theories help us gain confidence in describing what is likely to take place in the future. Many physical phenomena occur with a degree of stability and consistency over time. Although human beings often surprise each other, psychologists have contended that someone’s past behavior is the best predictor of that person’s future behavior. Thus, if our theories have properly and accurately postdicted the way someone has acted, they should lead us to a clear picture of what future behavior that person will exhibit.

Before they had reasonable theories regarding physical science, our ancestors found events like eclipses and earthquakes to be inexplicable. They responded to such phenomena with dread or superstitious speculation. The same was true with respect to complex bodily functions and the spread of disease. Having theories about our natural world and our place in it gives us as human beings a comfortable, reliable foundation upon which to strengthen and enlarge our knowledge. Theories, in short, free us to spread our mental wings and fly into new territory.

Three other characteristics are associated with good theories. First, they exhibit parsimony; that is, they are as simple as possible. Second, they should be consistent with previous theories. Third, they also need to be deniable.

Deniability means that those who hold a theory should be able to describe evidence that would cause them to abandon it. If this weren’t the case, choosing among competing theories would be a matter only of who spoke loudest or fought hardest on behalf of their opinions.

What Theories Are Not

Many ingredients make up human inquiry. We’ve established that theories rank among the most important. Several others, however, are part of the landscape and need to be differentiated from theories.

First of all, theories are not laws. Laws specify uniform cause-and-effect relationships that hold true under limited, defined circumstances. Unlike theories, which are broader, they do not claim to explain why the relationships exist. Consider Newton’s First Law of Motion, for instance: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” The theory of gravity, in contrast, more broadly states that any two or more objects exert a force of attraction on one another.

Second, theories are not claims. Claims are contentions based on belief or opinion. They do not necessarily rely on empirical evidence—i.e., evidence acquired through conventional sense perceptions and assessed through scientific processes. Individuals and groups may continue to maintain their claims without regard to investigations and discoveries which counter their beliefs. Theories, in contrast, are developed—and modified, if contrary evidence arises—by careful, systematic observation and testing among members of a community.

Finally, theories are not arguments. In everyday language, an argument is simply a reason someone offers for accepting or stating a particular claim. More formally, a logician would say that an argument comprises a premise and a conclusion. A premise might be “We all know that gray clouds sometimes produce rain. I see gray clouds in the sky.” This would be followed with a conclusion, such as “There’s a possibility that it’s going to rain.” A theory about the weather, beyond its relevance to specific conditions in the sky at a particular time, encompasses all sorts of meteorological phenomena and is meant to apply universally.

Are Theories Practical?

There may be more than meets the eye to Kurt Lewin’s statement at the beginning of this section concerning theory and practice. Obviously, not all theories will be equally practical. Some can be applied with more assurance to broader domains than others, some occupy a tenuous place among many other competing theories, and some are simply bad. Whether theories successfully guide action depends on whether they’re properly developed, whether they correspond well to reality, and whether they’re sufficiently flexible to evolve as circumstances change and new information becomes available.

Furthermore, it’s been pointed out that knowing theories does not necessarily mean that we will act according to them. Sandelands, L.E. (1990). “ What Is So Practical about Theory? Lewin Revisited .” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior , 20 (3): 235–262. And other forms of communication can sometimes be as provocative and valuable to us as theory. Good poetry, essays, and fiction all may inspire us and help instill the kind of confidence we need to make decisions and cover new intellectual ground.

Still, it’s clear that theory can serve as an important contextual factor as individuals and groups refine and elaborate upon the practices they follow. As we’ll see in the next section, group communication theory constitutes just such a valuable contextual factor for us.

Key Takeaway

A good theory can help us explain and predict phenomena..

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• The theory of gravity tells us that all objects, in all situations and at all times, exert an attractive force upon each other. Can you think of any statements about human interaction that apply in all situations and at all times? What makes you confident in your answer?
• What are one or two major assumptions you make about people in groups which guide your own behavior as part of those groups?

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center