1. Problematic Integration Theory Tran My Trang: s3311623 Duong Nguyen Phuong Nam: s3311632

2. Organization Background and History Two kinds of Orientations in Problematic Integration Forms of Problematic Integration Applying Problematic Integration

3. 1. Background and History Austin Babrow: _ Professor of Communication from the University of Illinois in 1986 _ 1992: Published the first statement of Problematic Integration theory _ He concerned: persuasion was not always a dispassionate process _ He believes: “people’s expectations and their desires are foundational to human experience” Inspiration of the theory

4. Problematic Integration A general theory of message reception and processing how individuals receive, process and make sense of specific message and situations.

5. WHAT is being INTEGRATED in Problematic Integration ?

7. Evaluative Orientations(Babrow, 1992,1995,2001,2004)

8. Probabilistic Orientations: Your assessment of how something will be happen Being very likely Being very unlikely Being unclear

9. Probabilistic Orientations: Being very likely: something happen as you predict or expect. Eg: “I’m sure I won’t have any problem getting into RMIT.” Being very unlikely: something DOES NOT happen quite as you expect. Eg: “As a woman over 40, I’m more likely to experience airline terrorism than to find a suitable husband” Being unclear: You do not have any predict or assesse for what will happen. Eg: “I have no idea how my parents will react when I tell them I’m thinking about moving out of state”

10. Evaluative Orientations: Is this object, characteristic, event or outcome good or bad? Positive Negative Neutral (Babrow, 2003, pg.8)

11. Evaluative Orientations: Positive Eg: “Going to RMIT will be great. I will be challenging and give me a lot of career opportunities.” Negative Eg: “Being alone for the rest of my life is the worst thing I can imagine-all that matters in life is a relationship with a significant mate.” Neutral Eg: “It does not really matter how my parents react, I’m so excited about my new job, I’m sure they’ll adapt eventually.”

12. WHEN Is Integration Problematic?

13. Not A Problematic Probability is high + Evaluation is positive eg: high budget + you want to be an RMIT student Probability is low + Evaluation is negative eg: low budget + you don’t want to be an RMIT student (Babrow,1992)

15. Uncertainty

16. Ambivalence

18. Uncertainty Unknowns cover the orientation Knowledge Eg. Patients will have problematic integration when they lack of information Evaluative HIV patients evaluate the reacts of their friends.

19. Ambivalence: (having two opposing feelings at the same time) Two mutually exclusive alternatives are valued in similar ways eg: Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise propose marriage to you at the same time An event evokes contradictory evaluative responses. Eg: You choose Brad Pitt > Tom Cruise cries > you feel sad

20. Impossibility The difficulties of deciding just how sure we are of the impossibility of our desire/ how we should value what is apparently impossible Ex: Go to RMIT by ox-cart.

21. How Communication relates to PI Source: after communication, problem appear Medium: communication as a tool to solve the problem Resource : how can you change your mind to reduce the problem

22. 4. Applying problematic Integration Divergence game: Uncertainty: Ambivalence game: What will you say with Tom Cruise to heal his heart? Impossibility game: A thing that your different gender can do but you can’t.

23. Conclusion IP: the way that individual receive, process and make sense of messages or situations in daily life. When we receive and process the message/ situation; we not only predict the outcomes (probabilistic orientations) but also put our assessment about the good/bad of that message ( evaluative orientations) 4 types of IP happen when 2 orientations cannot integrate.

24. Reference Ajzen, I 1991, ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational behavior and human decision resources, pp. 179-211. Babrow, A. S 1992, Communication and problematic integration: Understanding diverging probability and value, ambiguity, ambivalence, and impossibility, Communication Theory, vol 2, pp. 95-130. Miller, K 2005, ‘Communication theories: Perspective, process and contexts, 4thedn, chapter 8, McGram_Hall, US, pp. 124-142.