communication

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese

It’s nice to have a communication theory that addresses our worries and concerns about interacting with people. Are you aware of the “work” that you do to address the anxieties you might have about a given communication situation? We tend to have two kinds of concerns (p. 148):

1) Cognitive uncertainty – the degree of uncertainty associated with the beliefs and attitudes we hold. Are we sure we have interpreted others’ behaviors accurately? Do we care about that interpretation if it is negative or positive?

2) Behavioral uncertainty – “the extent to which behavior is predictable in a given situation,” and whether we know what the right behaviors are in a given situation.

Here’s a personal example will help explain the two kinds of uncertainty: One of the “joys” of academia is attending professional conferences. Some conferences have a stated purpose and allow like-minded people to meet, work together, and achieve goals. Other conferences are more “diffuse” in their purpose, so that the general goal is for people to jockey for social position and to ally themselves with influential people. I feel quite cognitively uncertain about how to interpret accurately what people are doing, and I wonder if such interpretations will be valid or useful to me. I’m not sure what behaviors I can use to avoid being seen as competitive for status as other people. On the other hand, I want to behave so that people see me as smart and competent. Generally, such meetings are an anxious trial for me.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory(URT) has been well-studied and well-embraced by communication researchers. It is based upon seven assumptions, as described on pp. 150-152. The last assumption is that people’s behaviors can be predicted in a “lawlike” fashion. These predictions are not infallible rules but are considered highly probable behaviors; therefore, the rules are called “axioms.”

Unlike the other theories in this course, URT is based upon these axioms that are used as “building blocks” for the rest of the theory (p. 153). The first seven axioms are given on pp. 153-155, and then the book explains how those axioms can generate 21 theorems about the relationship between two concepts. If you have a mathematical or logical bent to your thinking, you will find URT fascinating. At about this point, however, other people begin to feel quite lost. Do not feel you have to understand all the various theorems and axioms for this class. What you should take away from this theory is the notion of a “law-like” theory and its many strengths, particularly to generate useful findings and to generate new research avenues. This ability to suggest new and useful avenues of research is called “heurism.”

Questions for You

1. Of the examples given showing how URT has been applied (pp. 158-163), which research seems the most relevant to your work or personal communication experiences?

2. Can you use this theory, its axioms, principles and theorems to better manage your feelings of uncertainty when you meet new people?

Social Penetration Theory

For a fun student lecture/demonstration of SPT, please take a look at this YouTube video. It’s about 6 and ½ minutes long:

I like how West & Turner admit that SPT came out of a cultural time period when “opening up and talking candidly was highly valued as an important relational strategy” (p. 168). In the early 1970s people, parents, and couples were all trying to communicate more effectively. Being open and honest was a part of those communication strategies.

Two big ideas from those days were 1) learning to use “I” statements when you are talking with someone about your feelings; 2) restating (or paraphrasing) what the other person has said to show that you understand him or her. Learning to communicate well and authentically was linked to a general idea that people could make the world a better place. It’s probably hard for most of you to remember a time when people did not expose their problems and feelings in an open way to anyone other than their closest of friends. Nowadays, people chat on and on about themselves in public through TV reality and talk shows, twitter, texting, Facebook, blogs, and so on. Even in the late 1960s and early 1970s, people rarely mentioned the word “cancer” when talking about a person’s illness! We have certainly moved far beyond the social restraints for conversation at the time this theory was developed.

Although we can see SPT was a reaction to a time when social conventions played a stronger role in what people talked about, the question remains painfully clear: How do we get close to people?

Questions:

1. What do you think about the 4th assumption of SPT: “Self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development” (p. 169)? Do you agree with that assumption? What other ways can people get emotionally closer to each other, if not through self-disclosure?

2. Can you think of an example from your life (only if you feel comfortable sharing), a movie, or a TV show where the principals of SPT were at work?

Social Exchange Theory

We can sum up this theory with one sentence: “Social Exchange Theory (SET) is based on the notion that people think about their relationships in economic terms” (p. 186). Now, if you are like me, you will say, “But that’s not true for me!” Wait a minute and look through the theory’s ideas first before completely rejecting them. Instead of “economics,” think in terms of the challenges and rewards of the relationship.

Look carefully at the assumptions to the theory on p. 188. Even if people are rational and avoid punishments, don’t we all “rationalize” the bad times in a relationship by thinking that, in the end, the relationship will be “worth” the struggles? West & Turner discuss this problem in the theory on p. 198. What do you think about the “operationalization” of the concept of rational decision making? Do you feel a sense of “aha! That helps me understand relationships better” or “what the heck is rational relationships!”

Have you learned that “selflessness” is a good value to have in a relationship? If you look up the term, it is seen as a “higher order” value — good for leaders as well as for people in relationships. In Buddhist thought, selflessness ends suffering. (see the following discussion to read ideas completely at odds to SET:

http://www.yoganowmalaysia.com/blog/selflessnessand%20compassion.html

1. What do you think about people who consider the needs of others more than their own needs?

2. Do you think Social Exchange Theory can explain selflessness in a satisfactory way?

Relational Dialectics Theory

Listen to the lecture and read through the chapter on Relational Dialectics to make sure you understand the meanings of the terms

Totality

Contradiction

Motion

Praxis

Then, take a look at the basic kinds of relational dialectics discussed on pp. 206-210. Make sure you understand how a person could want BOTH aspects of these dialectics:

1. Autonomy/connection

2. Openness/protection

3. Novelty/predictability

Look at these scenes from an episode of Friends:

1. What are the dialectical struggles you see going on for Ross in this scene? In other words, the “humor” is based on dialectical tension. Use the above terms from the theory to explain what is going on in the couple’s relationship.

2. Use the ideas from Social Exchange or Social Penetration Theory to explain why the dialectic of “getting closer/maintaining autonomy” didn’t “work” for Ross.

3. Compare the “heuristic” qualities of Relational Dialectics with those of Social Exchange Theory. Do you think both theories have equal explanatory and predictive strengths?

4. Give an example from your own life where you feel or felt a dialectic pull between two opposites. For example, you might appreciate your spouse for his or her careful use of money, but also want him or her occasionally to join you in a “splurge” on an exciting trip.