The Biology of Communication

Beatty, Michael J., McCroskey, James C and Valencic, Kristin M. The Biology of Communication: A Communibiological Perspective. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, 2001.

Whatever the exact point in time which we believe life begins during pregnancy, there is a consensus that we are biological beings long before we are social beings. (p. 1)

Should it turn out that biology is more important than environment or situation, but that biology is not the sole determinant of communicative functioning, the focus of scholars interested in understanding human interaction would surely change. (p. 1)

Following the lead of scholars studying the role of biology in psychosocial processes who adopted psychobiology as a label, we chose to refer to our perspective as communibiology. At the risk of oversimplifying the communibiological paradigm, we think it would be instructive to briefly define what is meant by the term. In a nutshell, we propose that communication is driven by inborn, neurobiological processes. Differences in individuals’ behaviors are seen as reflecting relatively stable individual differences in neurobiological functioning. Why assign the presumption to biology? Because biology possesses primacy. The more inborn characteristics account for communicative functioning, the less significant any other type of account for the behavior or process of interest. (p. 3)

Although “inborn” connotes genetic inheritance, the properties of neurobiological functioning are also shaped by nutrition, physical trauma, and chemical intervention. Although readers might be tempted to balk at this suggestion, concluding that we rely on “environment” as an important determinant of communication activity, we remind readers that our marginalization of the role of environment was based on the term as defined in learning theories. (p. 3)

As can be noted, we have referred to our work as a paradigm, rather than a theory. Paradigms are ways of thinking about a domain such as communication. More specifically, paradigms lay the groundwork for theories. (p. 6)

As the communibiological paradigm becomes more fully elaborated, like any paradigm, new types of research will be needed. During the initial phases of development, especially when a paradigm is originally introduced, the support is likely to be indirect. (p. 7)

Our approach to communication theory is decidedly reductionistic. That is, we maintain that human communication can most fully be understood by describing the underlying biological processes and their origin. (p. 25)

What makes such a perspective somewhat different from other approaches to communication theory is that a reality is assumed. A communibiological theory requires that specific anatomical systems can be identified, which produce and process various substrates, and that individual differences in the sensitivities and substrate productions of these structures correspond to communicative behavior. In contrast to notions of traits as theorists’ inventions, communibiological theory positions traits as shorthand for underlying biological processes that are quite real. (p. 26)

Although the field of communication, like many social sciences, has seen a metatheoretic emphasis on alternative ways of thinking about social phenomena in recent years, we need to point out that alternative ways of thinking are useful processes but not the endoints of scientific inquiry. (p. 26)

The alternatives to a model of human communication based on inborn, neurobiological systems include communication behavior, and responses include communication behavior, and responses to the messages of others, as learned responses and creative adaptation to situations. (p. 27)

A reliance on learning explanations also has been prominent in mass communication research and media studies. Learning perspectives place considerable importance on the environmental feedback as a central mechanism that shapes human behavior. Individuals are viewed as responding to situations in terms of anticipated consequences of behavioral options. (p. 27)


1. Although many of our communication tendencies have been assumed to be learned, no evidence documents that more than 20% of the variation in those tendencies is due to environmental contingencies or learning processes
2. Although many theorists operate on the assumption that dimensions of the situation (e.g., interaction partner’s behavior) prompt and/or constrain communication, no systematic research programs have indicated more than 20% of the variance in communicative functioning can be attributed to situational features. (pp. 78-79)
3. A portion of the effect attributed to environment and situation can be accounted for by temperament alone. (p. 79)

Although it is commonly assumed that evolutionary significance means that a particular trait of a species is necessary or serves some survival function, that is a simplistic view of Darwin’s theory. Indeed, many traits do have immediate survival for both the individual organism and for the species in general. And clearly, we can easily imagine the functional sginficance of fear, aggressiveness, and sociability to our clan-oriented species faced with a hostile environment. It is also true that species stubbornly retain characteristics that would seem to be outdated. Evolutionary processes seem to place less confidence in the linear direction of change than humans do. (p. 79)

Some human traits that might seem less adapted to modern civilization that might be viewed as products of a conservative evolutionary process, one that clings to characteristics that once were functional just in case we return to that earlier environment. However, as we mentioned earlier in this chapter, the pressure toward maximum variation within species is also “evolutionarily significant” even if the traits of some members of a species have little or no immediate survival value. In Darwin’s view, it is simply one way nature distributes the risks across a species. (p. 79)

Summarizing this chapter, we view communication functioning as an expression of principally inborn neurobiological functioning. In general, neurobiological systems are products of genetic inheritance but they are also affected by exogenous physical or biological events (e.g., physical trauma or parental drug use). Across al social contexts, people differ from one another in the way they respond to the same set of stimuli. These differences are attributed to individual differences in the sensitivity to neurobiological systems. This sensitivity can consist of threshold levels for stimulating a particular system and/or intensity and duration of reaction. Each system underlying scientific communication processes has evolutionary significance either as (a) an adaptation pertaining to survival of the individual or generativity of the species or (b) sustenance of variation within the species. (pp. 80-81)

Although humans may someday evolve to a state in which intellectual or executive centers of the brain (i.e., regions of the cerebral cortex) dominate action, temperamental impulses impose on functioning more profoundly because they are older, more powerful systems. Situational pressures have a relatively trivial impact on the communication behavior of the individual because selectivity processes, which are inborn neurological systems, transform situational cues to fit temperamental traits. When situational input cannot be distorted to fit temperament, stress arises from the “poorness of fit” between temperament and environment. Stress induced by environmental thwarting of temperamental expression leads to displacement of impulses. (p. 81)

“many contemporary personality theorists have reduced the spectrum of personality variables to between three and seven “super traits,” referred to as the Big three and Big Five…In general, the more parsimonious sets of traits are the result of higher order factor analyses and theoretical stances regarding the exact number of superfactors in part depends on differences pertaining to factor-analytic techniques. (pp. 83-84)

Although most of our own work has adopted Esyenck’s three-factor model, consisting of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism…we encourage scholars to explore the value of the other four models. (p. 84)

The centerpiece of communibiology is that communicative functioning principally respresents expressions of neurobiological functioning. Accordingly, individual differences in communicative functioning represent individual differences in neurobiological functioning. These differences span sensitivity of receptor sites in neurons, amount of neurotransmitter produced, latency of uptake, or any myriad of and/or combinations of such processes. (p. 93)

“we have emphasized the importance of describing the particular neurobiological processes that are thought responsible for the communicative functioning of interest. Furthermore, we have argued the significance of matching communication constructs, whether cognitive, affective, or behavioral, to neurobiological systems known to control the relevant components of the construct, if not, the construct itself. In other words, we believe the scientific integrity of our theories heavily depends on our ability to show that models of communication function in a manner consistent with known brain functioning. (p. 93)

In the simplest sense, the fact that the human brain has evolved to higher levels of complexity in a systematic rather than random fashion, seems to suggest that genes are passed from generation to generation. (p. 104)

Unlike the work of many of our cognate disciplines, most of what we learn in the study of human communication can have immediate and direct applications for so-called “real-world” environments. The primary reason for our move to the communibiological approach was our frustration with the outcomes produced by the social learning paradigm. Although advocates of that paradigm have pushed their orientation in applied contexts, they have very little solid research to support what they have advocated. Their research accounts for only small amounts of variance, hence their advice, when followed, generally has produced small-to-invisible results. If media content has small effects on children’s aggressiveness, then revising media content to reflect less violence probably will have very little impact on the overall amount of violence among children. (p. 127)

Before we turn our attention to specific applied contexts, it is important that we make clear exactly what assumptions underlying the communibiological approach are of primary importance for communication in applied contexts. There are give of these assumptions: (p. 128)
1. Temperament, personality, and intelligence vary as a function of an individual’s genetic programming.
2. Specific communication behaviors are not genetically programmed, but temperamental tendencies towards types of behavior (including communication behavior) are.
3. Communication behavior is primarily an expression of temperament, personality and intelligence. Hence, people communicate differently primarily because they differ in terms of temperament and personality. Differences in intelligence (and resulting increased or decreased knowledge about and understanding of human communication processes) may result in expression of temperament that are judged as more or less appropriate by others and may produce more or less positive outcomes for the communicator.
4. Situations have no more than a trivial impact on communication behavior, because
a. a. genetic programming influences the selection of situations.
b. b. genetic programming influences how people selectively perceive situations in which they find themselves.
5. Under most circumstances, genetic programming cannot be changed. However, genetic patterns may be impacted prior to birth by a variety of factors, as well as by druge and/or gene therapy either before or after birth. (p. 128)

The Role of Culture (p. 130)

People create cultures, not the other way around. When we examine culture sof the “new world,” the islands near and continents of North and South America(n), we find them to be dramatically different from one another. The people who initially settled these
People create cultures, not the other way around. When we examine culture sof the “new world,” the islands near and continents of North and South America(n), we find them to be dramatically different from one another. The people who initially settled these lands were very different, hence the cultures they created are very different. Of course, it can be argued that these people simply “transplanted” their culture from one place to another. However, this argument begs the point. People differ genetically, and genetically different people create different cultures. (p. 130)

Cultures evolve over time to accommodate the members of the culture. Hence, a given culture reflects the more dominant people in that culture. Just as genetics determines physical appearance in a national culture (the biological factors of their appearances), genetics determines the way people tend to behave in that culture. Hence, as we travel from one culture to another we note distinctive differences not only in the appearance of the people but also differences in their general behavior patterns. As a part of their genetic programming, some people are more able to adapt to different cultures than others. However, just as there are limits on how much a person can modify her or his appearance, there are also limits on how much a person can modify her or his communication behavior. (p. 130)

Our view is a pure “trait” view, for which we have no apology. We see no need to adopt an “interactionist” approach, because we do not accept the presumed importance of “situations.”
(p. 136)

It is our view that one of the major biological links to human communication traits (but certainly not the only one) is the impact of genetics on the neurobiological subsystems of the behavior activation system, the behavior inhibition system, and the fight or flight system. (p. 136)

It appears that these neurobiological subsystems are linked to at least three powerful temperament variables – extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. These temperament variables have very strong links to a variety of communication orientations and behavioral tendencies (including, e.g., communication apprehension and verbal aggressiveness). Our underlying assumption is that the genetic factors that produce these neurobiological subsystems are the same genetic factors that produce the temperament variables, a view originally advanced by psychobiologists and supported by their research. (p. 137)

Soal UTS Manajemen perubahan & Komunikasi

Soal UTS Manajemen perubahan dan Komunikasi
Dr.Zaim Ukhrowi, M.Si.
Sifat Soal : Take Home Test. (dikumpulkan tgl 6 juni 2008)

SOAL 1
Buatlah Analisa menyangkut sebuah Organisasi atau perusahaan yang anda kenal. Berdasarkan konsep Kurva Sigmoid, pada tahapan mana posisi Organisasi atau perusahaan itu ?

SOAL 2

Berdasarkan posisi organisasi / perusahaan itu, perubahan apa yang ingin anda lakukan? Apa yang menjadi faktor pendorong dan penghambat perubahan tersebut.?

SOAL 3
Bagaimana anda dapat menjelaskan jaringan komunikasi di dalam organisasi / perusahaan tersebut? Bagaimana anda akan memanfaatkan jaringan itu untuk perubahan.