Uncertainty reduction theory

In 1975, Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese created Uncertainty Reduction Theory "to explain how communication is used to reduce uncertainty between strangers engaging in their first conversation together. In an effort to comprehend initial interactions, Berger and Calabrese believe people attempt to increase the predictability in communication. Initially, the strategy was formulated in terms of assumptions and axioms: e.g.:

Tthere are seven assumptions associated with Uncertainty Reduction Theory.

1. People experience uncertainty in interpersonal settings.

2. Uncertainty is an aversive state, generating cognitive stress.

3. When strangers meet, their primary concern is to reduce their uncertainty or to increase predictability.

4. Interpersonal communication is a developmental process that occurs through stages.

5. Interpersonal communication is the primary means of uncertainty reduction.

6. The quantity and nature of information that people share change through time.

7. It is possible to predict people's behavior in a lawlike fashion.

1. Axiom 1: Given the high level of uncertainty present at the onset of the entry phase, as the amount of verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty for each interactant in the relationship will decrease. As uncertainty is further reduced, the amount of verbal communication will increase. It is also important to consider recently published work by Berger, in which, he states the importance of appropriate levels of verbal communication, where too much verbal communication may lead to information seeking by the other party.
2. Axiom 2: There is an inverse relation between uncertainty and nonverbal affiliative expressiveness.
3. Axiom 3: There is a positive relation between information-seeking behavior and uncertainty.
4. Axiom 4: There is an inverse relation between intimacy and uncertainty.
5. Axiom 5: There is a positive relation between reciprocity and uncertainty.
6. Axiom 6: When people have things in common, they are more likely to reduce uncertainty about the other, while dissimilarities produce increases in uncertainty about the other individual.
7. Axiom 7: Increased levels of uncertainty produce decreased levels in liking.

According to uncertainty reduction theory we are likely to seek information about other people as a way of reducing our uncertainty. We do this by employing one or more of three communication strategies:

· Passive observation, in which we watch how others act

· Active information gathering, in which we find out information from third-party sources

· Direct interaction, in which we deal directly with whomever we want to know more about

Uncertainty Reduction Strategies

We can examine how we use these uncertainty reduction strategies with a hypothetical example. Suppose that you are at a party. Along with the familiar faces of people you already know from earlier encounters, there are some new faces, as well. Berger and Calabrese (1975) suggest that one strategy you may employ is passive observation, in which you make indirect observations of a person you don't know. As you watch him or her, you do a kind of initial sizing up and ascertain your comfort level and willingness to communicate. Remember that you are on the same stage, so it is possible that another person is sizing you up, as well. This may be one of the reasons that in initial encounters, we put so much emphasis on using some of the strategies of impression management.

 Another kind of indirect route for reducing your uncertainty might be to use the active strategy of information gathering, in which you ask other people for information about the person you don't know. You may turn to a friend whom you know has more information about the unknown person than you do. You might ask for his or her insight to help guide you in determining how you can relate to this new person. This is an indirect approach, insofar as you do not directly interact with the person about whom you need to reduce uncertainty.

The third strategy is direct interaction. As you communicate directly with the unknown person, you might make small talk and exchange superficial and non-threatening information about yourself. This is the tactic of sharing safe background information, such as demographic information, about yourself. You describe where you work and what kind of personal interests and hobbies you like to pursue. Even the rather mundane chatter you share about the weather or activities like a vacation that you are planning to take become grist for the mill of small talk.

Over the course of time, many of us have developed a set of stock questions and answers that facilitate these initial conversations. The topics of our small talk may seem mundane and inconsequential, but the benefits of these conversations are not. Berger and Calabrese (1975) suggest that as people do more of this type of verbal interaction, accompanied by nonverbal expressiveness that is comfortable and appropriate to the situation of meeting new acquaintances, uncertainty is reduced. In turn, the information that people gain about others may open the way to more of the kinds of low-level self-disclosures that creates meaningful common ground.

t may be especially valuable to use uncertainty reduction strategies when you relate to people who come from a culture that differs from your own. The popular movie Save the Last Dance offers an illustration of the kinds of uncertainties a person faces when he or she is the outsider in a community. The main character of the story, Sara (played by Julia Stiles), has lived her entire life in a suburban environment and dreams of studying ballet at Julliard after high school. That dream is put on hold, however, when her mother dies and she must move to live with her father in the city. At that point, she enters a dramatically different world. Now attending an urban high school on the south side of Chicago, she must use all three types of uncertainty reduction strategies to adjust to her new life situation, new relationships, and he change in environment. Her adaptations go beyond learning to do the dance steps of hip-hop, rather than ballet. Several scenes of the movie simply show Sara as a passive observer, taking in what she sees around her. Along the way, she develops an attraction to Derek (portrayed by Sean Patrick Thomas). First, she observes him in classes and how he relates to his friends in the school cafeteria and at Steps, the hip-hop club. Later, she turns to a newly found friend, Chenille, to use the active approach of seeking out a third party to learn more about how to relate to her new environment and to find out more information about Derek. Chenille turns out to be an atypical third-party source, as she is Derek's sister. She cools to the idea of Sara's interest in pursuing a deeper relationship with her brother. The most meaningful information that Sara and Derek learn about one another results from their direct interaction as they each talk about themselves and listen to one another's personal stories.

Uncertainty Reduction Outcomes

In the early phases of getting to know someone, our self-disclosures are likely to be reciprocated. We match information so that each person takes turns sharing about himself or herself. Later on, we may not expect that kind of immediate, tit-for-tat, reciprocal disclosure. Indeed, in mature relationships, we may look to others for support and understanding when we disclose information, rather than for immediate matching of self-disclosure. So, when you sit down with your best friend to share how you've experienced a problem, you don't expect him or her to respond right then and there with an account of his or her own problem—that is, unless he or she is attempting to create a sense of empathy on the basis of having been through the same kind of experience.

As we reduce the level of uncertainty we feel about someone by exchanging information in the early stages of a relationship, we may experience greater liking for that person and feelings of being somewhat more intimate. That sense of intimacy will continue to grow through the sharing of deeper levels of self-disclosure.

Message design logic

Since people think about communication differently, they construct different types of messages. A message design logic, MDL, then, is your belief about communication that, in turn, links thoughts to the construction of messages. Stated differently, people who have different views about the nature and function of communication will construct different types of messages. This difference in message type is particularly evident when a person is faced with communication challenges such as dealing with a difficult coworker. According Barbara O’Keefe, there are three types of design logics from which people operate.

The expressive MDL is a sender-focused pattern. That is, a person using this pattern is concerned primarily with self-expression. Communication is viewed as a means for conveying the sender’s thoughts and feelings. People who use the expressive MDL have a very difficult time holding back their thoughts; if it’s in their head, it’s out their mouth. They value openness, honesty and clarity in communication and are mistrustful of anyone who seems overly strategic in his or her communication. Such communicators pay little attention to context and what may be appropriate behaviour for a particular context. For example, when faced with potential sexual harassment at work (in an office), a person using an expressive MDL might respond in this way: “You are the most rude and disgusting man I have ever met. You are nothing but a dirty old man. Where do you get off thinking you could force me to have an affair with you? You make me sick”.

A person who uses the conventional MDL views communication as a rule-based game that is played cooperatively. As such, those using the conventional MDL are primarily concerned with appropriateness; these individuals view communication contexts, roles, and relationships as having particular guidelines for behaviour. They are concerned about saying and doing the “right” thing in any given situation. To do the “right” thing, they follow the rules of politeness. Keeping our example of dealing with potential sexual harassment, a person using a conventional MDL might respond (example): “There’s absolutely no chance I will have an affair with, and if you try to fire me over this I won’t keep quiet about it. That kind of behaviour is not appropriate in the workplace. Besides, you are married. Don’t approach me again”. In this case, the message sender makes several allusions to communication rules; not only does he or she point out that his behaviour “is not appropriate in the workplace” but the speaker also refers to an implicit rule by saying “you’re married”, which is a social relationship that is constrained by certain behavioral guidelines.

Individuals using a rhetorical MDL view communication as a powerful means used to create situations and negotiate multiple goals. Instead of emphasizing self-expressing (expressive logic) or social appropriateness (conventional logic), those, acting on the basis of a rhetorical design logic focus on the effect of messages on the recipient. This approach is noted for flexibility, as well as for its sophistication and depth of communication skills. Those using a rhetorical MDL pay close attention to other people’s communication in an effort to figure out theirs’ points of view. They try to anticipate and prevent problems by redefining situations to benefit all parties involved in the interaction. An example of a rhetorical MDL in the potential sexual harassment situation is as follows: “We have got a great working relationship now, and I’d like us to work well together in the future. So I think it’s important for us to talk it out. You are a smart and clear-thinking guy and I consider you to be my friend as well as my boss. That’s why I have to think you must be under a lot of unusual stress lately to have said something like this. I know what it’s like to be under pressure. Too much stress can really make you crazy. You probably just need a break”.

The sender strives to maintain a good working relationship with the person in the future. This is accomplished by redefining the situation from one of sexual harassment to one of excessive stress. By reframing the message, the rhetorical communicator has found “a common drama in which to play” [Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction: P.: 36-37].