SPC3210 Chapter 5

CHAPTER 5 aa

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Based on the research of Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese

Human relationships are fraught with uncertainty. From initial encounters between complete strangers to enduring close
relationships, individuals experience uncertainties about their relationship partners as individuals and uncertainties about their

relationships.

?Charles Berger

Gi k s a n d L u c a s R o g e r s

Gia Banks and Lucas Rogers take the same philosophy class at Urban University but until today, they really had not
spoken together, although they saw each other in class every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Lucas had noticed Gia
and found her attractive, and he wondered why she never spoke up in class. Gia thought Lucas was cute and had
made some good comments in class discussions. Today, as Gia was leaving the classroom, she noticed Lucas staring at
her from the corner of the room where he sat with his friends. Although Gia had thought about getting to know Lucas,
she felt a little uncomfortable about having him stare so hard at her, and she hurried to get out of the classroom and
away from his gaze.

Unfortunately, her friend Maggie stopped her at the doorway with a question about the assignment for next week, and
so Gia and Lucas reached the hallway at the same time. There was an awkward pause as they smiled uncertainly at
each other. Lucas cleared his throat and said, ?Hi. That was a pretty interesting lecture in class today, wasn't it?" Gia
shrugged, smiled back, and replied, ?I?m not sure | get what's going on in there. I'm majoring in engineering, and this is
Just an elective for me. Sometimes | think | should have taken bowling instead.? Lucas smiled and said, ?I'm a

communication studies major myself, and this class relates to a lot of what we've talked about in some of my other

classes, so it's OK for me. But | guess I'd have the same reaction you're having if | got stuck in an engineering class! |
probably couldn't engineer my way out of a paper bag.? The two laughed for a minute. There was an awkward silence

and finally Gia said, ?Gotta run. Catch you later,? and hurried off down the hall.

Lucas w a l k e d to his next class wondering if they w o u l d talk again, if Gia was putting him down, if she t h o u g h t he had
b e e n r u d e a b o u t her major, if s h e liked him, if he liked her, or if he cared. Gia, for her part, was kicking h e r s e i f f o r

Unfortunately, her friend Maggie stopped her at the doorway with a question about the assignment for next week, and
so Gia and Lucas reached the hallway at the same time. There was an awkward pause as they smiled uncertainly at
each other. Lucas cleared his throat and said, ?Hi. That was a pretty interesting lecture in class today, wasn't it?? Gia
shrugged, smiled back, and replied, ??'m not sure | get what's going on in there. I'm majoring in engineering, and this is
Just an elective for me. Sometimes | think | should have taken bowling instead.? Lucas smiled and said, ?I'm a
communication studies major myself, and this class relates to a lot of what we've talked about in some of my other
classes, so it's OK for me. But | guess I'd have the same reaction you're having if | got stuck in an engineering class! |
probably couldn't engineer my way out of a paper bag.? The two laughed for a minute. There was an awkward silence

and finally Gia said, ?Gotta run. Catch you later,? and hurried off down the hall.

Lucas w a l k e d to his next class w o n d e r i n g if they w o u l d talk again, if Gia w a s putting him d o w n , if she t h o u g h t he had
b e e n r u d e a b o u t h e r major, if s h e l i k e d him, i f h e liked her, or if he c a r e d . Gia, f o r her part, w a s k i c k i n g h e r s e l f f o r

s o u n d i n g like an idiot t h e first t i m e she?d talked to Lucas. ? W h y in t h e w o r l d w o u l d I say | s h o u l d have t a k e n bowling??
s h e a s k e d h e r s e l f . ? L u c a s p r o b a b l y t h i n k s I?m t o t a l l y s t u p i d ! ? B u t t h e n s h e w o n d e r e d w h y h e ' d b e e n s t a r i n g s o i n t e n t l y

at h e r b e f o r e . It w a sa l i t t l e c r e e p y ? m a y b e it d i d n ' t m a t t e r w h e t h e r h e t h o u g h t s h e w a s d u m b , s h e m i g h t n o t w a n t t o

g e t to k n o w him after all. Gia s i g h e d t o herself. It w a s confusing.

Sometimes called Initial Interaction Theory. Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) was originated by Charles Berger and Page 83

Richard Calabrese in 1975. It continues to be an important theory, because, as Leanne Knobloch (2008) states, ?[E] veryday life is

infused with uncertainty? (p. 133). Berger (2016) makes a similar point by stating: ?Attempting to reduce uncertainty is a pervasive and

vital activity across a wide range of human endeavors? (p. |}. Berger and Catabrese's goal in constructing this theory was to explain how

communication is used to reduce uncertainties between strangers engaging in their first conversation together. The theory explains that

we all accomplish uncertainty reduction by activating two primary processes, called proactive and retroactive processes. When using

proactive processes, a person can predict the most likely actions another might take out of many alternatives. So, for example, when Lucas

uses proactive processes, he thinksofa l l the alternative things that Gia might do after their encounter and predicts which one she?s likely
to actually do. Retroactive processes help Lucas explain Gia's behavior after she does something (for instance, if she ignores him when
they see each other next, Lucas would need retroactive processes to figure out why she did that) (Evuleocha & Ugbah, 2018).

Sometimes proactive processes are called prediction, and retroactive processes are called explanation. Berger (2011) comments on URT.

saying:

[T]he main supposition underlying the theory is that when strangers meet, they are faced with myriad uncertainties about each other's
attitudes, beliefs, values and potential actions. In the service of predicting and, in some cases explaining, each other's beliefs and actions so
that communicative choices cnn be made, individuals seek to reduce their uncertainties by acquiring information about each other (p. 215).

?You can see how our opening example of Lucas and Gia illustrates Berger and Calabrese?s basic contention that when people first meet.

their uncertainty levels are high. Lucas doesn't know Gia, so he doesn't have a background that'll help him interpret her comments to
him. Nor is he certain about what will happen the next time they see each other. Further, there could be many possible explanations for

Gia's behavior. All ofthese factors mean that Lueas will be uncertain. Berger and Calabrese use the ideasof theorists Claude E. Shannon

and Warren Weaver (1949) as a foundation for URT. Shannon and Weaver note in their information theory that uncertainty exists

You can see how our opening example of Lucas and Gia illustrates Berger and Calabrese?s basic contention that when people first meet.
their uncertainty levels are high. Lucas doesn't know Gia, so he doesn't have a background that'll help him interpret her comments to
him. Nor is he certain about what will happen the next time they see each other. Further, there could be many possible explanations for
Gia?s behavior. Allofthese factors mean that Lucas will be uncertain. Berger and Calabrese use the ideasoftheorists Claude E. Shannon

and Warren Weaver (1949) as a foundation for URT. Shannon and Weaver note in their information theory that uncertainty exists
whenever the number of possible alternatives in a given situation is high and the likelihood of their occurrence is relatively equal.
Conversely, they say, uncertainty is decreased when the alternatives are limited in number and/or there is an alternative that is usually

chosen.

For example, when Teresa walks into her Spanish I classroom on the first day of class and the person sitting nearest the door smiles at

her, Teresa has a few alternative explanations for this behavior. The person could be friendly. trying to get to know her, squinting in the

sunlight, or mistaken in thinking she knows Teresa. Because a college classroom is often governed by a norm of friendliness and because

the alternative explanations are few in number, Teresa will probably decide the smile was oneoffriendly welcoming, reducing her
uncertainty fairly easily, Bur if Teresa walked into a job interview and found another candidate in the waiting room with her who glaneed

her way and smiled, the alternative explanations would be more numerous. They would contain all of the above possibilities and others,

including that the person is sizing her up as competition, the person thinks she?s weak competition, the person is trying to get her to let
her guard down, and so forth. These increased alternatives will increase uncertainty, causing Teresa to attempt to reduce it. Berger and
Calabrese theorize that communication is the vehicle by which people reduce their uncertainty about one another. In turn, reduced

uncertainty creates the conditions for the development of interpersonal relationships.

After Berger and Calabrese (1975) originated their theory, it was slightly elaborated (Berger. 1979; Berger & Bradac, 1982). The current
version of the theory suggests that there are two types of uncertainty in initial encounters: cognitive and behavioral. Our cognitions refer
to the beliefs and attitudes that we and others hold. Cognitive uncertainty, therefore, refers to the degree of uncertainty associated with
those beliefs and attitudes. When Lucas wonders whether Gia was ridiculing his major and whether he really cares, he experiences
cognitive uncertainty. Behavioral uneertainty, on the other hand, pertains to ?the extent to which behavior is predictable in a given
situation? (Berger & Bradac, 1982. p. 7). Because we have cuttural rituals for small talk, Gia and Lucas probably have an idea of how to

behave during their short conversation. If oneof them had violated the ritual by either engaging in inappropriate self-disclosure (revealing

private information about oneself to another) or totally ignoring the other, their behavioral uncertainty would have increased. People may
be cognitively uncertain, behaviorally uncertain, or both before, during, or following an interaction.

In addition, Berger and Calabrese (1975) and Berger (2016) theorized that uncertainty is related to several concepts rooted in _ Page 84

communication and relational development: verbal output, nonverbal warmth (such as pleasant vocal tone and leaning forward),

information seeking (asking questions), self-disclosure, reciprocity of disclosures, similarity, and liking. URT has been described as an
example of original theorizing in the field of communication (Miller, 1981) because it employs concepts (such as information seeking and

self-disclosure) that are specifically relevant to studying communication behavior. URT attempts to place communication as the
cornerstone of human behavior, and to this end a numberofassumptions about human behavior and communication underlie the theory.

Assumptions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

As we have mentioned in previous chapters, theories are frequently grounded in assumptions that reflect the worldviewofthe theorists.

URT is no exception. The following assumptions frame this theory:

+ People experience uncertainty in interpersonal settings, and it generates cognitive stress.

+ When strangers meet, their primary concern is to reduce their uncertainty and increase predictability.

+ Interpersonal communication is a developmental process that occurs through stages, and it's the primary means of uncertainty
reduction.

+ The quantity and nature of information that people share change through time.
+ It?s possible to predict people's behavior in a lawlike fashion.

?We will briefly address each assumption. First, in a numberofinterpersonal settings, people feel uncertainty. Because differing _Paze 85

expectations exist for different interpersonal occasions. it's reasonable to conclude that people are uncertain or even nervous about
meeting others. Online dating site designers confirm that one of their main concerns is to help people reduce their uncertainties about

online dating in general and their site in particular (Jung, Roh, Yang, & Biocea, 2017). In addition, let's consider the case of Lucas and

Gia. Although there are a great many cues in the environment that can help Lucas and Gia make sense out of their interaction, there are
complicating factors as well. For example, Lucas may have noticed Gia hurrying to leave the room. There may be several alternative
explanations for this behavior, including another class that is a distance away, a general predisposition toward hurrying, having to go to
the bathroom, feeling faint and wanting fresh air, wanting to avoid meeting Lucas at the door, and so forth. Given all these alternatives,

it's likely that Lucas (or anyone in his situation) feels uncertain about how to interpret Gia's behavior. Further, this assumption asserts
that uncertainty is an aversive state because it results in cognitive stress. As Berger and Calabrese ( 1975) assert, ?When persons are

unable to make sense outoftheir environment, they usually become anxious? (p. 106). The theory assumes that it takes a great deal of

emotional and psychological energy to remain uncertain, and people would prefer not to experience that.

The next assumption underlying URT advances the proposition that when strangers meet, two concerns are important: reducing
uncertainty and increasing predictability (Solomon, 2016). URT suggests that information seeking is a primary method to reduce

uncertainty and attain some sort of predictability. Information seeking usually takes the formo f asking questions. Think about the last

time you had an initial encounter with someone in an interpersonal setting. More than likely a great deal of time in this interaction was
occupied with questions and answers (e.g.. Where are you from? What is your major? Do you live on campus?, etc.) This process can be
quite engaging, and many people do this unconsciously. Jessica Deyo and her colleagues (2011} found that in speed-dating contexts,

participants? behaviors adhered to this assumption albeit in a speeded-up fashion. The first minuteof the speed date was filled with

questions and answers focused on demographic information.

The third assumption of URT states both that interpersonal communication is a process involving developmental stages, and that

interpersonal communication is the primary means people have for reducing uncertainty. According to Berger and Calabrese (1975).

wenaralle oneal ine mact nannle heain ee ctawaa f a nammiuninati

The third assumption of URT states both that interpersonal communic
interpersonal communication is the primary means people have for red
generally speaking, most people begin interaction in an entry phase, de
between strangers. The entry phase is guided by implicit and explicit ru
?Hi! How are you doing?? (e.g.. "Fine, how are you?"). Individuals then
where the interactants start to communicate more spontaneously and t
occur during an initial encounter, but it is more likely to begin after rep

stage during which individuals make decisions about whether they wish
all people do not enter a phase in the same manner or stay in a phase f
universal framework explains how interpersonal communication is used

of interpersonal relationships.

The fourth assumption underscores the natureoftime. It also focuses o

the third assumption states. Uncertainty reduction theorists believe tha
process. To illustrate this assumption, consider the experiences of Mira
the YWCA to aitend her first meeting of a grief support group for rece
when Danielle came over to introduce herself and welcome her to the g
felt more confident. As they talked, Miranda reduced her uncertainties
Meeting Danielle and feeling somewhat confident about her helped Mir

The final assumption underlying URT indicates that people's behavior

Chapter 3 that theorists have some guidelines to help them in the jo
covering law, which assumes that human behavior is regulated by gener

there may be some exceptions, in general people behave in accordance
laws that will explain howwe communicate. As you might imagine, cov
the natural world may operate under laws, the social world is much mo

called ?lawlike.? A paitern is outlined, but the deterministic notion imp
goal of lawlike statements is daunting. Thus, theories like URT begin w

establish regularities that govern people's behaviors. Covering law theo
be true (or axioms) to statements that are derived from these truisms (

cation is a process involving developmental stages, and that
ducing uncertainty. According to Berger and Calabrese (1975),
efined as the beginning stage of a communication encounter
ules and norms, such as responding in kind when someone says,
n enter the second stage, called the personal phase, or the stage

to reveal more idiosyncratic information. The personal phase can
peated interactions. The third stage, the exit phase, refers to the
h to continue interacting with this partner in the future. Although

for a similar amountoftime, Berger and Calabrese believe that this

d to reduce uncertainties and to shape and reflect the development

on the fact that interpersonal communication is developmental, as
at initial interactions are a key element in the developmental
anda, who spent a few anxious minutes by herself before entering
ently widowed partners. She immediately felt more comfortable
group. As the two exchanged information with each other, Miranda

s about what the other members of the support group would be like.

randa feel better about the whole process.

can be predicted in a lawlike fashion. Recall from Page 86

ob of theory construction. One of the guidelines we reviewed was
ralizable principles that function in a lawlike manner. Although

with these laws. The goal o af covering law theory is to lay out the
vering law theorists have a difficult task. Although some aspects of

ore variable. That is why covering laws in the social sciences are
plied with natural laws is relaxed a bit. Still, even to approach the
with what may seem like commonsense observations in order to
ories are constructed to move from statements that are presumed to

(or theorems).

Gas

Key Concepts o f URT: The Axiom and Theorem

U R T is a covering law theory, so i t is based on axioms, w h i c h are presumed t o be true, and theorems that are derived f r o m t h e axioms.
Each one o f the axioms and theorems is identified as an area f o r research exploration (Berger, 2016; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). W e
explore first the axioms and then the theorems below.

Axioms o f Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Berger and Calabrese based their axiomatic approach on earlier researchers such as Herbert Blalock (1969), who concluded that causal

relationships should be stated in the form of an axiomatic truism. Each axiom presents a relationship between uncertainty (the centrat

theoretical concept) and one other concept. URT originally posited seven axioms. To understand each, we refer back to our chapter-

opening exampleo f Gia and Lucas.

A x i o m 1: A s the a m o u n to f v e r b a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n between strangers increases, the level o f u n c e r t a i n t y f o r each interactant in the relationship.

decreases. As uncertainty is further reduced, the amounto fverbal communication increases (The verbal communication axiom.)

Regarding Lucas and Gia?s situation with reference to the verbal communication axiom, the theory maintains thati f they talk more ta
each other, they will become more certain about each other. Furthermore, this is a reciprocal relationship, so as they get to know each
other better, theywill talk more with each other.

A x i o m 2: A s n o n v e r b a l affilintive expressiveness increases, u n c e r t a i n t y levels decrease in an initial i n t e r a c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , decreases i n

uncertainty level will cause increases in nonverbal affiliative expressiveness. (The nonverbal expressiveness axiom.)

I f Gia and Lucas express themselves to each other in a warm nonverbal fashion, they will grow more certain of each other, and as they do

this, they will increase their nonverbal affiliation with each other: They may be come more facially animated, or they may engage in more

prolonged eye contact. The two might even touch each other in a friendly fashion as they begin to feel more comfortable with each other.

Axiom 3: High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior. As uncertainty levels decline, information-seeking

behavior decreases. (The information-seeking axiom.)

This axiom, which we will discuss more later, is one of the more provocative propositions associated with URT. It suggests that Gia will

ask questions and otherwise engage in information seeking as long as she feels uncertain about Lucas. The more certain she feels, the less
information seeking she will do. The same would apply to Lucas.

Axiom 4: High levels of uncertainty in a relationship cause decreases in the intimacy level of communication content. Low levels of Page 87
uncertainty produce high levels of intimacy. (The intimacy axiom).
?__

Because uncertainty is relatively high between Gia and Lucas in our chapter-opening story, they engage in small talk with no real self

disclosures. The intimacyoftheir communication content is low, and their uncertainty level remains high. The fourth axiom asserts that
if they continue to reduce the uncertainty in their relationship, then their communication will consist of higher levels of intimacy.

NEE EP EEEOID IEEE ES eee e e nee on eeee E I O O OE O E IS! E I IE I A S

disclosures. T h e i n t i m a c yo f their c o m m u n i c a t i o n content is low, and their uncertainty ievel remains high. T h e f o u r t h axiom asserts that

if they continue to reduce the uncertainty in their relationship, then their communication will consist of higher levels o f intimacy.

Axiom 5: High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity. {The
reciprocity axiom).

According to URT. as long as Gia and Lucas remain uncertain about each other, they will tend to mirror each other's behavior. For

example, after Gia shares that she is lost in the class and that she is an engineering major, Lucas reveals his major to her and admits that

he would probably have troubles in engineering classes. Immediate reciprocationofthat sort (I tell you where I'm from and you tell me

where you're from) is a hallmark of initial encounters. When people talk more with each other and develop their relationship more, they

trust that reciprocity will be made at some point ( i fI don't tell you something that mirrors your communication today. I'll probably do so
the next time we talk or the time after that). With this in mind, strict reciprocity is replaced by an overall senseofreciprocity in our

relationship.

Axiom 6: Similarities between people reduce uncertainty, whereas dissimilarities increase uncertainty. (The similarity axiom).

Because Gia and Lucas are both college students at Urban University, they may have similarities that reduce some of their uncertainties

about each other immediately. Yet they are different sexes and have different majors?dissimilarities that may contribute to their

uncertainty level.

Axiom 7: Increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking; decreases in uncertainty produce increases in liking. (The liking axiom).

As Gia and Lucas reduce their uncertainties, they typically will increase their liking for each other. If they continue to feel highly

uncertain about each other, they probably will not like each other very much. This axiom has received some indirect empirical support. In
a studyexamining the relationship between communication satisfaction and uncertainty reduction, James Neuliep and Etica Grohskopf
(2000) found that participants playing interviewers in an organizational role play were more likely to feel positively toward the
participants playing the job seekers (and more likely to hire them) when their uncertainty was low. The seven axioms and their

r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s u m m a r i z e d i n Table 5.1.

Table 51 Axiomso f Uncertainty Reduction Theory

AXIOM MAINCONCEPT RELATIONSHIP RELATED CONCEPT

1. 1 Uncertainty Negative + Verbal Communication

2. 1 Uncertainty Negative + Nonverbal Affiliate Expressiveness
3. Uncertainty Positive
+ information Seeking

4. 1 Uncertainty Negative + intimacy Level of Communication

5. t Uncertainty Positive + Reciprocity

?Table 51 Axiomso f Uncertainty Reduction Theory

AXIOM MAINCONCEPT RELATIONSHIP RELATED CONCEPT

1 Uncertainty Negative 1 Verbal Communication

2. t Uncertainty Negative | Nonverbal Affiliative Expressiveness

3. t Uncertamty Positive 1 Information Seeking
4. t Uncertainty Negative
5. t Uncertainty Positive | Intimacy Level of Communication

1 Reciprocity

6. | Uncertainty Negative 1 Similarity
1 Liking
7 t Uncertainty Negative

Page 88

Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Berger and Calabrese combined all seven axioms in every possible pairwise combination to derive twenty-one theorems (see
(@ Table 5.2). Theorems are theoretical statements that are derived from axioms. Unlike axioms, theorems are theoretical (not proven)

relationships. They need to be tested to see if the assumed relationship actually holds up under scrutiny. Theorems also suggest a

relationship between two concepts. For instance, because the amount of verbal communication is negatively related to uncertainty
(Axiom |) and uncertainty is negatively related to intimacy levels of communication (Axiom 4), then verbal communication and intimacy

levels are positively related (Theorem 3, see (@ Table 5.2). You can generate the other twenty theorems by combining the axioms using

the deductive formula above. You need to use the rule of multiplication for multiplying positives and negatives. For example.i f two
variables have a positive relationship with a third, they are expected to have a positive relationship with each other. If one variable has a

positive relationship with a third, whereas the other has a negative relationship with the third, they should have a negative relationship

with each other. Finally, iftwo variables each have a negative relationship with a third, they should have a positive relationship with each

other.

Table 5.2 Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory Deduced from Axioms

AXIOM MAIN CONCEPT RELATIONSHIP RELATED CONCEPT

4 . 1 Verbal Communication Positive 1+ Nonverbal Affiliative Expressiveness
4 Information Seeking
2. t Verbal Communication Negative

3. 1 Verbal Communication Positive + Intimacy Level of Communication

4, 1 Verbal Communication Negative + Reciprocity

5. t Verbal Communication Positive + Simitarity

6 t Verbal Communication Positive + Liking
3 Information Seeking
7. 1 Nonverbal Afliative Expressiveness Negative

8. t Nonverbal Affilative Expressiveness Positive + Intimacy Level of Communication

9. 1 Nonverbal Affiiative Expressiveness Negative 4 Reciprocity

10. Nonverbal Afiliative Expressiveness Positive + Similarity

1. 1 Nonverbal Affiliative Expressiveness Positive + Liking

12. + Information Seeking Negative 4 Intimacy Level of Communication

13. 1 Information Seeking Positive + Reciprocity

44. 1 Information Seeking Negative 4 Similarity

18. 1 Information Seeking Negative 3 Liking

16. t Intimacy Level Negative + Reciprocity

1% 1 Intimacy Levet Positive + Similarity

18. 1 Intimacy Levet Positive + Liking

19. 1 Reciprocity Negative 3 Similarity

20. Reciprocity Negative 4 Liking

Expansions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Many researchers have tested URT and based their studies on the tenetsoft h e theory. Furthermore, Berger and several colleagues refined

and expanded the theory. taking into account new research findings. URT has been expanded and modified in several areas, including
antecedent conditions, strategies, developed relationships, social media, and context. We'll address each of these areas briefly below.

Antecedent Conditions

Berger (1979) has suggested that three antecedent (prior) conditions will activate uncertainty reduction processes. The first condition

?occurs when the other person has the potential to reward or punish. If Gia is a very popular, charismatic figure on campus, her attention
may be seen asa reward by Lucas. Likewise, Lucas might experience a rejection by her as punishing. If Lucas finds out that a friend
thought Gia was boring and unattractive or if he discovers she has a bad reputation on campus, he won't see her attention as rewarding or

her rejection as punishing. Thus, according to Berger, Lucas will be more motivated to reduce his uncertainty the more he thinks that Gia
has the ability to reward or punish him.

Asecond antecedent condition is created when the other person behaves contrary to expectations. In the case of Gia and Lucas, social
norms might suggest that staring is impolite. When Gia perceives Lucas staring intently at her for an extended period of time, her

expectations for his behavior are violated, and Berger predicts that her desire to reduce her uncertainty increases.

The third and final condition exists when a person expects future interactions with another. Lucas knows that he will continue to see Gia
in class for the rest of the semester. Yet, because he has discovered that she's an engineering major. he may feel that he can avoid her in
the fiture. In the first case, Berger would expect Lucas?s desire to increase predictability to be high?he knows he'll be seeing Gia often; in
the second case, Lucas's desire level is lower because Gia has a different major, and they can avoid each other after this class ends.

Page 89

Strategies

Asecond area of expansion pertains to strategies. Berger (2016) suggests that people, in attempting to reduce uncertainty, employ tacties
from three categories of strategies: passive, active, and interactive. At the coreofeachi s the goal of ?desired information? (p. 2) from
those with whom we are communicating. First, there are passive strategies, whereby an individual assumes the roleo f unobtrusive
observer of another. Active strategies exist when an observer engages in some type of effort other than direct contact to find out about
another person. For instance, a person might ask a third party for information about the other. Finally, interactive strategies occur when

the observer and the other person engage in direct contact or face-to-face interaction?that is, conversation that may include self-
disclosures, direct questioning, and other information-seeking tactics. Although these strategies are critical to reducing uncertainty.
Berger believes that certain behaviors, such as asking inappropriately sensitive questions, may increase rather than decrease uncertainty,
and people may need additional reduction strategies. Kami Kosenko (2011) found support for all these strategies in a study examining
trancoender adulte? pammunieatian ahant cafer cev Tn her ctidyall af thece etrateaiec wereilh trated in the nar ante? recnancee

Strategies

of?Asecond area expansion pertalns to strategies, Berger (2016) suggests that people, in attempting to reduce uncertainty. employ tactic

from three categoriesofstrategies: passive, active, ind interactive, At thecore of each fe the goal of?desired information(p?. 2)from

?thosewith whomwe ore comtuniesting, Ft, there ate pansite snatepias, whereby ani indrvidual assumes theroleof unobtrusive

of t yopf e?observer another. Active stataglan exist when an observer engages in some
effort other than direct contact to find cut about

nother person, For i n s t aanpecrseon, might a sa thkieparty for Inforumalion about the othel. Finally, iterastixe strategies occur when
the observer and the ether perton engage in direct contact of foeetoface interaction that Is, eonveraation that may Include self

w t r a t e g i e sdisclonures, icest questioning. andl other information seeking tactics, Althoughthese
toar critical reducing uncertainty,

b e l i e v e sBerger
that certain behaviors, such as asking Inapproprintely sensitive questions, mayincrense rather than dectente uncertainty,

i n9fund people may need additional reduction strategies, Kaunt Koaenike (2011) foundsupport forall these atrtegles atudy exarnining,

inransgender adults? communication about snfer vex. In her study afl ofthese stitegieswere illustrate the participants? rexpontes.

To further jihistrate these strategies. consider Lucas and Gla. The time they spend in class covertly observing ench other falls Pape 90,

into the prasve category. When Luca observes iow Gin cents to jokes the profenor tellin leotwe, he is utnzing a particular paaene

toot cole cenciarssanrhips, or observing Gi doing something specie. A diferent pasuve t e t , calle dixubibonsasshin

?would require Lucas to observe Gia in more informal settings ourside the classroom to see how she behaves whan her Intubitiona are

down. Ifether one of then engages fiends to find out information nbout the otber, they? be using au active atrateny. When they stak

after class, they illustrate the intecactive strategy to reduce their uncertainties,

?Torn Emimers and Dan Canary(1996)argue thot fn established relationships an additional etcategy bs employed. They call this strategy

ncertowts acceptance, oud it inetudes tneties auchag simply trusting parte.your Ernmera and Canary wiggest thet acaepting or trusting

your partner even tren you azer't completely certala about what's happeriig is viable strategy for coping with uncertainitny developed
relationships. Thia additional arntegy leads us toad i a t a soifothne thirdareaofexpanaion for URT: developed relationships.

Developed Relationships

in inal?When Berger and Calabrese (1975) frst wrote thalr theary, theywere interested desoribing encownvers between strangers. They

s o l e dacleat and narrowboundary aroud their theoretical Insights. I r the interveniyneagrs, howeves, the theory hnsbeenexpanded to
Include developed relationships. 08 the acceptance strategy just described indicates, Berger (1982, 1987) acknowledged this expansion,

the p r oofc e s s?with updates to
thattheory, Frat, he comments uncertainties are ongoing in relationships, ond thus the uncertaiaty

reduction Is relevant in developed relationships as well 06 in wuzialimeractions, This conclusion broadens earlier claims by Berger and

Calabrese thar specifically Iionited URT to inltal encouncers,

?The inclusionof the three antecedent conditions dlucusted previowuly (potential for reward of punishment, deviation fram expeotetians,

of?and anticipation fusure interactions) pointe us toward an examination of uncertainty in dewrloped reletionships. Specifcsty. we walt

expect rewards from, be aurprinedby, and antieipere future intersetions wth those with wham: wa heve ongoing relationshups

a

Developed Relationships

When Berger and Calabrese ( 1975) first wrote their theory. they were interested in describing initial encounters between strangers. They
stated a clear and narrow boundary around their theoretical insights. In the intervening years, however, the theory has been expanded to
include developed relationships, as the acceptance strategy just described indicates. Berger (1982, 1987) acknowledged this expansion
with updates to the theory. First, he comments that uncertainties are ongoing in relationships, and thus the process of uncertainty
reduction is relevant in developed relationships as well as in initia! interactions. This conclusion broadens earlier claims by Berger and
Calabrese that specifically limited URT to initial encounters.

The inclusiono f the three antecedent conditions discussed previously (potential for reward or punishment, deviation from expectations,
and anticipation of future interactions) points us toward an examination of uncertainty in developed relationships. Specifically, we will

expect rewards from. be surprised by, and anticipate future interactions with those with whom we have ongoing relationships.

S t u d e n t s Talking: Sonia

| enjoyed the sectiono f the chapter that talked about expanding the theory into developed relationships. I've been

working for the same boss for 4 years, yet many times | feel a sense of uncertainty with her like the theory talks about.
You'd think I'd know what to expect from Tara after working for her for several years, but she still keeps surprising me.
Last week, she completely changed her attitude, and | wasn't quite sure how to take it. For several weeks she?s been
telling me that we have to finish a project much morequickly than the time we usually take with our work. So have

been killing m y s etlof get it done. Then last week she said we could slow down, and she didn?t explain herself at all. |
immediately used the active strategy and started asking a couple of other people in the office to see if| could figure

out what she was thinking. So, overall, think the theory should be expanded to developed relationships, and I'm glad

i s expanding to relationships in the workplace too. We have a ton of uncertainties at my job!

Uncertainty in developed relationships may be different than it is in initial encounters. It may function dialectically within relationships;

that is, there may be a tension between reducing and increasing uncertainty in developed relationships. See our discussion of Relational

Dialectics Theory in @ Chapter 25 for a thorough discussionofthis typeoftension. Berger and Calabrese (1975) observe, ?While

uncertainty reduction may be rewarding up toa point, the ability to completely predict another's behavior might lead to boredom.
Boredom in an interpersonal relationship might well be a cost rather than a reward? (p. 101). Gerald R. Miller and Mark Steinberg (1975)

mention a similar belief, noting that people have a greater desire for uncertainty when they feel secure than they do when they feel

insecure. This suggests that as people begin to feel certain about their relationships and their partners, the excitement of uncertainty

?Uncertainty in developed relationships may be ditterent than It ts In Initial encounters. It may function dialectically within relationships
that is, there may be a tension between reducing and increasing uncertainty in developed relationships. See our discussion of Relational

Dialectics Theory in @ Chapter 25 for a thorough discussion of this type of tension. Berger and Calabrese (1975) observe, ?While
uncertainty reduction may be rewarding up toa point, the ability to completely predict another's behavior might lead to boredom.
Boredom in an interpersonal retationship might well be a cost rather than a reward" (p. 101). Gerald R. Miller and Mark Steinberg (1975}

mention a similar belief, noting that people have a greater desire for uncertainty when they feel secure than they do when they feel
insecure, This suggests that as people begin to feel certain about their relationships and their partners, the excitement of uncertainty
becomes desirable. Neuliep and Grohskopf (2000) agree, stating that the linear relationship between uncertainty and other
communication variables may not hold in stages beyond initial interaction.

Let's examine this contradiction between certainty and uncertainty a bit further through the example of Lucas and Gia. When 9_Page
they met for the first time after class, their uncertainty was high. If their subsequent conversations reduce their uncertainties and they

begin a friendship, then their relationship will involve a level of predictability?that is, both will be able to predict certain things about the
other because of the time they spend together. Yet this predictability (certainty) may get tedious after a time, and they may feel their
relationship is in a rut. At this point, the need for uncertainty, or novelty, will increase, and they might try to build some variety into their
routine to satisfy this need.

Uncertainty and uncertainty reduction processes may operate in developed relationships in somewhat the same ways that Berger and

Calabrese theorize they do in initial interactions. One study (Mongeau, Jacobsen, & Donnerstein, 2007) found that reducing uncertainty

was cited as a primary goal in dating. Research conducted by Sally Planatp and her colleagues (Planalp, 1987; Planatp & Honeycutt,
1985: Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988) discovered that dating couples found that at times their uncertainty increased. When this

happened, the individuals were motivated to reduce it through their communication behaviors. In a study of 46 married couples, Lynn

Turner (1990) reached similar conclusions. Therefore, according to these researchers, we must not assume that once relationships begin,
uncertainty disappears. However, Leanne Knobloch and her colleagues (2007) observe that uncertainty may be undesirable in marriage
because it leads the partners to be more negative in evaluating conversations with each other.

Another example of how URT has been extended into developed relationships is found in the research of Lucas Parks and Mara Adelman
(1983). Parks and Adelman studied the social networks (friends and family members) of an individual and indicate that these third-party

networks can be quite important information sources about a romantic partner. They note that network ?members may comment on the
partner's past actions and behavioral tendencies. They may supply ready-made explanations for the partner's behavior or serve as
sounding boards for the individual's own explanations? (p. 57). They conclude that the more partners communicate with their social

networks, the less uncertainty they will experience. Furthermore, the researchers found that the less uncertainty people feel, the less likely
they will be to dissolve a relationship with another.

Based on Parks and Adelman's (1983) research in established relationships and social networks, Berger and Gudykunst (1991) _Page 92
posited an eighth axiom and seven resulting new theorems. The new axiom asserted that romantic partners who interact with their
partner's social network experience less uncertainty about their partner than do those who don't have this interaction. The more

interaction with the social network, the less uncertainty there will be.

Some researchers who were interested in how URT is applied to established relationships suggested that in developed relationships,

Social Media and Computer-Mediated Communication [:

A n o t h e r area where U R T has been expanded is in social media and computer-mediated c o m m u n i c a t i o n in general. F o r instance, A r t e m i o
R a m i r e z , Jr. a n d J o s e p h W a l t h e r ( 2 0 0 9 ) and others (e.g., F l a n a g i n , 2007; T i d w e l l & W a l t h e r , 2 0 0 2 ) have n o t e d t h a t U R T can be a p p l i e d
t o computer-mediated c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Some research (e.g., M a y & Tenzek, 2016) indicates t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n seeking on t h e I n t e r n e t is
similar to h o w U R T describes it in a pre-online environment?involving the passive, active, and interactive strategies that we've discussed.

Ramirez and Walther (2009), however, observe that there are some significant differences in information seeking online versus _Paee 93
face-to-face. According to these researchers, online information seeking allows communicators to ?employ several approaches to
information acquisition sequentially or simultaneously in order to reduce uncertainty? (p. 73). Further, the online environment means

that information-seeking sources can begin to pile up without a person?s consent and outside of their control. Googling someone (or
using other ontine search engines to obtain information about a specific person), reveals a great dealofinformation about them that they
might not even be aware is in the public domain. Artemio Ramirez and his colleagues (Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002}

have noted that Googling forms a special case of active information-seeking: they label it the extractive strategy.

Students Talking Tech

Ryder

&

1am not sure about the conclusion that it?s better to interact face-to-face for increased liking. | have a lot of friends that
I've never met, but| am talking to them all the time online and during games we play together. I think | like them just as
much, if not more, than friends | talk to IRL [in real life]. | sometimes think that I'm a better version of me online than |
am IRL. | can take a break and think about what I'm going to say so | don?t sound like a jerk, and sometimes, | have to
adimit | can blow up and not be so cool in person.

Thomas Wagner (2018) specifically examined the extractive strategy by testing how uncertainty reduction and liking were affected by
looking at a person's Facebook page after meeting them in person compared to having a face-to-face encounter only. Wagner's approach

was grounded in Axioms | and 7 of URT. He found that uncertainty was reduced no matter whether the two had interacted face-to-face
only or whether the extractive strategy was used via Facebook viewing. Liking, on the other hand, was more affected by face-to-face
encounters. People tended to express more liking for those they had only spoken to in person than those they had investigated via

Facebook after their interaction.

Cynthia Palmieri, Kristen Prestano, Rosalie Gandley, Emily Overton, and Qin Zhang (2012) found that selfdisclosures on Facebook
decreased uncertainty, in line with URT's predictions. And, in another study using URT principles, Jayeon Lee (2015) examined the role

that social media play in perceptions ofjournalists. Lee discovered that the social media activities ofjournalists affected audience

Cynthia Palmieri, Kristen Prestano, Rosalie Gandley, Emily Overton, and Qin Zhang (2012) found that selfdisclosures on Facebook a
decreased uncertainty, in line with URT?s predictions. And, in another study using URT principles, Jayeon Lee (2015} examined the role

that social media play in perceptions of journalists. Lee discovered that the social media activitieso f journalists affected audience

viewpoints. In particular, Lee concluded that journalists who selfdisclosed information related to their personal life were viewed

positively. Additionally, one study found that both participants in an encounter didn't even have to be human for the effect of self-

disclosure to oceur. Seo Young Lee and Junho Choi (2017) found that when personal service agents such as Siri and Alexa engaged in

self-disclosure, users felt less uncertain and were more pleased with the interaction then when there was noselfdisclosure.

Online dating provides a fruitful arena for the application of URT, and its use is rapidly growing in the United States. From 2013 Page 94

to 2017, the use of online dating sites in the United States grew 300 percent (Jung et al.. 2017). Researchers (¢.g., Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai,

2011) have observed that in the online dating arena, uncertainty reduction is a salient concern. Further they note that online disclosures

(unlike those offline) don't need to occur in the symmetric fashion that Berger and Calabrese (1975) described (first J tell you where I am

from and then you reciprocate by telling me where you grew up). Instead, online information-seeking behaviors may occur prior to.
hearing a person's disclosures, as well as simultaneously or after disclosures are made. For instance, Andrea can Google Jer at any time
during a possible online connection and use extractive strategies. Further, Gibbs and her colleagues (2011) suggest that this asymmetric

information exchange is important to online daters because the risk of deception online is so large that it contributes to concerns about

personal safety. However, they found that online daters use a great many interactive strategies such as direct questioning online that

confirmed URT's theoretical claims as well as those found in earlier research (Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2010). But one-third of

Gibbs's 562 respondents reported triangulating information (comparing what a person said to information found about them on websites

or in public records), supporting the notion that the online environment adds different information-secking strategies for uncertainty
reduction.

Context

URT originally sought to explain communication in interpersonal contexts, but it has been used in additional contexts as well, ineluding

culture, family communication, mass communication, health care, and the workplace. As Michael Boyle and his colleagues (2004)

argued, the basic logic of URT can be applied to contexts beyond the interpersonal. We'll discuss each of these contexts briefly below, and
you'll note that many of the studies we cite are situated at the interface of two contexts, such as family and social media.

Culture The expansion and adaptation of URT to culture is credited to William Gudykunst (1993, 2005}. Gudykunst (1995) extended
URT into a new theory that deals specifically with culture, which he identified as Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM). According to
James Neuliep (2016), uncertainty is a cognitive state while anxiety pertains to an affective (emotional) state. AUM suggests that ?many
people, regardless of culture, experience anxiety when communicating, or when they anticipate communicating. with persons from
different cultures or ethnic groups, especially during initial encounters? (Neuliep, p. 7). Neuliep (2012) contends that uncertainty is an
aversive state?a claim also identified as a basic assumptiono f the URT.

Gudykunst and Tsukasa Nishida (1986a) discovered differences in low- and high-context cultures. According to Edward T. Hall (1977),

Jow-context cultures are those in w h i c h m e a n i n g is found in the explicit code or message itself. Examples o f iow-context cultures are t h e

Context

URT originally sought to explain communication in interpersonal contexts, but it has been used in additional contexts as well, including

culture, family communication, mass communication, health care, and the workplace. As Michael Boyle and his colleagues (2004)

argued, the basie logic of URT ean be applied to contexts beyond the interpersonal. We'll discuss eacho f these contexts briefly below. and
you'll note that many of the studies we cite are situated at the interfaceoftwo contexts, such as family and social media.

Culture The expansion and adaptation of URT to culture is credited to William Gudykunst (1993, 2005}. Gudykunst (1995) extended
URT into a new theory that deals specifically with culture, which he identified as Anxiety: Uncertainty Management (AUM). According to
James Neuliep (2016), uncertainty is a cognitive state while anxiety pertains to an affective (emotional) state. AUM suggests that ?many
people, regardless of culture, experience anxiety when communicating, or when they anticipate communicating. with persons from
different cultures or ethnic groups. especially during initial encounters? (Neuliep, p. 7). Neuliep (2012) contends that uncertainty is an

aversive state?a claim also identified as a basic assumptionofthe URT.

Gudykunst and Tsukasa Nishida (1986a) discovered differences in low- and high-context cultures. According to Edward T. Hall (1977),
Jow-context cultures are those in which meaning is found in the explicit code or message itself. Examples of low-context cultures are the
United States, Germany, and Switzerland. In these cultures, plain, direct speaking is valued. Listeners are supposed to be able to

understand mostofthe meaning based merely on the words a speaker uses. In high-context cultures, nonverbal messages play a more

significant role, and much of the meaning of a message is internalized by listeners or is induced by listeners from the situation. Japan,
Korea, and China are examples of high-context cultures. These cultures value indirectness in speech because listeners are expected to

ignore mucho f the explicit code in favor of understood meanings cued by nonverbals and context.

With respect to research on low and high-context cultures, Gudykunst and Nishida ( 1986b) found that frequency of communication
predicts uncertainty reduction in low-context cultures, but not in high-context cultures. The researchers also discovered that people use

direct communication (asking questions) to reduce their uncertainty in individualistic cultures. In collectivistic cultures, more indirect

communication is used with individuals who are not identified as members of the cultural in-group. Based on this research, then, people

from different cultures engage in different kinds of communication to reduce their uncertainty.

A concept similar to uncertainty reduction is uncertainty avoidance, which is an attempt to shun or avoid ambiguous situations (Hofstede,

1991; Smith, 2015}, and cultures may be characterized by their attitude toward, and tolerance for, uncertainty. Geert Hofstede believes

that the perspective of people in high-uncertainty avoidance cultures is ?What is different is dangerous.? whereas people in low

uncertainty avoidance cultures believe ?What is different is curious? (1991, p. 119). Gudykunst and Yuko Matsumoto (1996) point out

that a number of cultures differ in their uncertainty avoidance (see( ) Figure 5.1). Understanding these differences can help us

understand communication behaviors in other countries.

Denmark

cron « f o e

Belgium: ?¥ France Korea

Span Greece my paper

?cy ?china

, India

¥

Pent

\

crite

4 argentina BE Countries With Countries With
High Uncertainty avoidanceMill Low Uncertainty Avoldance

. Argentina Canada

Belgium Denmark

Chute England

Egypt China (Hong Kong}

France lad

Greece Jamaica

Japan Sweden

Korea United States

Mexico

Peru

Spain

Figure 51. Countries and Uncertainty Avoidance

@ Page 95

Family Communication Margaret Stewart (2018) examines a specific type of family, military families, through the lens of URT. Stewart

observes that ?American military families cope with uncertainty, transieney, and geographic separation during deployments as a regular

part of domestic life, and the contemporary military lifestyle is hallmarked by recurrent and lengthy deployments? (p. 1). Stewart
investigated how military families used computermediated communication for relational maintenance in the hopesofreducing their
uncertainties. She interviewed women whose husbands were military men currently deployed outsideofthe United States. She found that
uncertainty was a dominant theme in all of their responses. The wives used social media to communicate with their husbands: however,

communication via social media was experienced as a paradox for her respondents. Although it often did reduce the partners?
uncertainties, it also could serve to increase uncertainties and spur jealousy.

A different application of URT to family communication comes from Amy May and Kelly Tenzek?s (2016) work examining how gay
couples wishing to have children via a surrogate try to reduce their uncertainties. The researchers, using URT as a framework, investigated

what information gay men posted online to reduce their uncertainty about the surrogacy process. May and Tenzek found seven themes
characterizing the content of what gay men posted. They conclude that their study provides a starting point for investigating how family

Family Communication Margaret Stewart (2018) examines a specific type of family, military families, through the lens of URT. Stewart

observes that ?American military families cope with uncertainty, transieney, and geographic separation during deployments as a regular
part of domestic life, and the contemporary military lifestyle is hallmarked by recurrent and lengthy deployments? (p. 1). Stewart

investigated how military families used computermediated communication for relational maintenance in the hopesof reducing their

uncertainties. She interviewed women whose husbands were military men currently deployed outside of the United States. She found that

uncertainty was a dominant theme in alloftheir responses. The wives used social media to communicate with their husbands: however,

communication via social media was experienced as a paradox for her respondents. Although it often did reduce the partners?
uncertainties, it also could serve to increase uncertainties and spur jealousy.

Adifferent application of URT to family communication comes from Amy May and Kelly Tenzek?s (2016) work examining how gay

couples wishing to have children via a surrogate try to reduce their uncertainties. The researchers, using URT as a framework, investigated
what information gay men posted online to reduce their uncertainty about the surrogacy process. May and Tenzek found seven themes
characterizing the content of what gay men posted. They conclude that their study provides a starting point for investigating how family:
members use online communication to reduce uncertainties in many of the ways predicted by URT.

Mass Communication Michael Boyle and his coresearchers (2004) found that people used information-seeking behaviors after the

terrorist attacks in the United States on September 1, 2001. in manyofthe ways predicted by URT. Some researchers (eg.. Perse &

Rubin, 1989; Rourke & McGloin, 2019) have examined how viewers use two of the strategies advanced by URT (active and passive) to

reduce uncertainties about characters seen on television shows, finding that passive strategies are emphasized. Specifically, Brenda
Rourke and Rory McGloin discovered that when viewers with Asperger syndrome (AS) watch a show like The Big Bang Theory, which
features a character with AS, they reduce uncertainty about themselves as well as the character.

Health Care Some research has investigated doctor-patient communication using URT (¢.g.. Sheer & Cline, 1995). And URT _Paze 96
has been tested in the context of health care reform. Specifically, Lindsay Neuberger and Kami Silk (2016) investigated what motivated
the lay public (who express high uncertainty around the topic of health care reform) to engage in information-seeking behaviors. Their
findings were not congruent with URT's predictions, however, because uncertainty alone wasn?t the main motivating factor for people to
engage in information seeking. Alternatively, Evan Perrault (2018} concluded that URT could be extended profitably into the health care

context. His study found, as URT predicts, that when patients are able toview videos o af prospective medical care provider speaking
about their background, uncertainties are reduced more than if they only read the provider's biography.

Workplace Some research has set uncertainty reduction principles in the contextofthe workplace (Hargie. Tourish, & Wilson, 2002;

Morrison, 2002). Stevina Evuleocha and Steve Ugbah (2018) used URT and discovered that organizations can reduce uncertainty about
job candidates when human resources engages in information seeking on social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter for job
sereening. The authors do caution that there are legal and ethical considerations in this practice, however. In another approach to
workplace communication, Shirish Srivastava and Shalini Chandra (2018) used URT to investigate how companies can create virtual
global workplaces. They conclude that virtual world users experience several uncertainties about this context, and ?URT can be a useful
lens for examining such concerns? (p. 782).

Integration and Critique

The beginnings of our relationships are usually unpredictable, and URT helps us understand those challenges. Further, Berger (2016)
posits that ?uncertainty is ?big business? in that governmental and nongovernmental organizations lose billions of dollars because

?managers abhor uncertainty?.

?Over a decade after the publication of the original theory, Berger ( 1987) admitted that some of the propositions of URT were flawed.

Other writers concur. Although URT has stimulated a great deal of discussion and research, it also has been criticized. As you think
about how useful URT is. keep the following criteria in mind: utility and heurism.

integration

CeoT t Rhetorical | S e s i s t i c | Phenomenologicat | Cybernetic | Sotio-Psychological | SoctoCitthiral | Crltivali

Intrapersonal | Interpersonal | Small Group/Team | Oxpanizational | Public/Rhetorjeal | Mass/Media |

?Cultural

Positivistic/Empirical |Intenprstive/Herma|neisnotino

Critique

reece ? Taoef eTsimste oon 1 a m t e a e e

Page 97

Utility

Some researchers believe that the major assumptionsofthe theory are flawed. Michael Sunnafrank (1986) argues that reducing

uncertainty about the self and another in an initial encounter is not an individual's primary concern. Instead, Sunnafrank argues, ?a more

primary goal is the maximizationof relational outcomes? (p. 9}. Sunnafrank calls for a reformulation of URT that takes into account the

importance of predicted outcomes during initial interactions. Predicted outcome value (POV) would explain the case in our chapter's
opening somewhat differently than URT would, Sunnafrank would contend that Lucas will be more concerned with maximizing rewards
in a potential relationship with Gia than in figuring out what she might do and why she is doing it. Actually, Sunnafrank suggests that
URT might kick in after Lucas decides what the predicted outcomes of talking with Gia will be. Jina Yoo's (2009) findings offered some
empirical support for POV's claims as opposed to URT's.

Berger's (1986) response to Sunnafrank is that outcomes cannot be predicted without knowledge and reduced uncertainty about oneself.

one's partner, and one?s relationship. It is Berger's contention that uncertainty reduction is independent of, as well as necessary to.
predicted outcome values. In fact, he believes that if one remains highly uncertain, there really are no predicted outcome values.

Furthermore, Berger responds to Sunnafrank?s critique by noting that the act of predicting an outcome serves as a means to reduce

uncertainty. Thus, Berger conchides that Sunnafank has simply expanded the scopeo f URT rather than offering an alternative to it.

Theory-tnto-Action

ae

ee

Sometimes peoplemight think that it could be good to increase, rather than reduce, uncertainty. For example, imagine
a dilemma when beginning a romantic relationship just before Valentine?s Day. It?s probably hard to figure out how to
celebrate the holiday with a relatively new romantic partner: Should you piay hard to get (increase uncertainty) or wear
your heart on your sleeve (decrease uncertainty)? You could get some help fromas t u d y that showed women
Facebook profiles of men who had supposedly viewed their Facebook profile. The women were divided into groups:
One group was told that these men liked them the mosot f a n y profiles they'd viewed; one group was told the men
found them to be average; and the third group was told they couldn't be sure about the men?s feelings - they either
liked them a lot or they thought they were average. The women responded most positively to the third group -the men
they weren't sure about, not the ones they thought liked them the most. Further, the study also showed that being
uncertain works besti f you think the other person actually likes you. So that?s good information to know when you first
start a relationship. If you think the other person likes you, create uncertainty. If you think they don?t like you yet, reduce?
uncertainty! This seems to represent a combination of Predicted Outcome Values and Uncertainty Reduction Theory.

Asecond problem with URT's utility has to do with its validity. Recal
he wasn't willing to give up on the theory. Some of his more skeptical

an axiomatic theory, if one building block is wrong, then much of the

Reynolds ( 1990) point to problems with Axiom 3, which suggests tha

behavior.

Their study of over a thousand students failed to find support for the

rather than facking knowledge is what promotes information-seeking i
Kellermann and Reynolds point out that many times we may be unce
not motivated to reduce our uncertainties by information-seeking beh
uncertainty, but because they care about the other, are interested in th

questions the validity of Axiom 3. He notes with reference to post-Se
greater sense of uncertainty. Interestingly, however, Dell McKinney a
Axiom 3, so the debate on this issue undoubtedly will continue conce

Heurism

It's clear from our earlier discussion on expansions of the theory that
heuristic. For instance, in addition to the contexts we mentioned prev
small groups (Booth-Butterfield, BoothButterfield, & Koester, 1988).
communication (Perrault & Silk, 2015) and computermediated comm

ll that even Berger (1987) has admitted some validity problems, yet
l colleagues, however, assert that given the tight logical structure of

e resulting theory is suspect. Kathy Kellerman and Rodney
at high uncertainty causes high levelsofinformation-secking

third axiom. Instead, they found that ?wanting knowledge _ Page 98

in initial encounters with others" (p. 71 [emphasis added]).
ertain about another, but because we have no interest in them, we are
haviors. People engage ir1 communication, therefore, not to reduce
he other. or both. In a different vein, Dale Brashers (2001} also
eptember 11 anxieties that sometimes more information results in a
and William Donaghy (1993) found some empirical support for
erning URT's usefulness.

URT has been expanded into many contexts, making it highly
viously, the theory has also been integrated into research examining
And, as we noted, research in areas as diverse as doctor-patient
munication (Lundy & Drouin, 2016) has used URT as a framework.

Closing

URT has made a very important contribution to the field of communi

communication and communication variables in a central position, an
their own discipline for theoretical explanations rather than borrowing
most frequently cited communication theories (Chung. Barnett, Kim,

ication, even as it?s generated some theoretical disputes. It places

nd it marked the beginning of communication researchers focusing on

g theories from other disciplines. Further, URT is oneofthe top ten

& Lackaff. 2013).