Uncertainty Reduction Theory - Term Paper Example

? Uncertainty Reduction Theory Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts Introduction According to the research statistics, up to 70% of people feel uncomfortable, if they have to communicate with a stranger. This can be explained by the statement that uncertainty factor defines the overall character of communication in such a case, and, considering the communication theories and practices, it should be emphasized that the actual importance of the uncertainty, and uncertainty reduction during the communication process, is closely linked with the necessity to find the most suitable communication strategy. Therefore, the importance of the uncertainty reduction theory in communication can be explained with the statement offered by Heath and Bryant (2000). As the authors emphasize, the uncertainty reduction theory is based on the statement that the key aim of the communication process between two people is to reduce the uncertainty, and get to know each other by applying various communication strategies, including passive observation, active assessment, and interpersonal communication. Theoretical Discussion The bases of the uncertainty reduction theory are linked with the concept that people will try to get to know as much as possible about each other by using various communication channels. Considering the fact that their uncertainty can be observed through behavioral and cognitive factors, it should be emphasized, that the general premise of the theory is linked with the necessity to adapt behavior and communication in order to find the most suitable behavioral pattern. Additionally, people tend to find out the opponent’s opinion, as well as formulate their own one about the other communicator. The further reduction of uncertainty can be observed on the relational communication level, and the key premise of this transition is linked with the statement that people become highly motivated in advancing the communication level, in order to reduce uncertainty, and reach certain goals. The key terms of the theory are grounded on the interaction patterns, applied by the strangers. Moreover, Berger and Calabrese (in Kramer, 2004), the founders of the theory, divide the interaction into three key stages that can be regarded as the liking or disliking communication factors: The entry stage is aimed at creating the first opinion, and development of the initial behavioral pattern. This is also featured by the use of the behavioral norms, commonly accepted within the society, while the character of the information exchanged (either verbal or nonverbal) is often of the demographic or transactional nature. The personal stage involves interaction initiation when the basic information concerning the stranger’s beliefs and attitudes is found out. This stage can be entered only after several entry stages. The interacting individuals start probing each other for the particular attitudes, values, and personal features of character. This stage is also featured with the emerging of particular emotions towards each other. The exit stage is also regarded as the decision-taking phase of the relations development. Therefore, people have enough information concerning each other, and they decide whether they have sympathy towards another person, or not. This stage is featured with the decisions whether the further relations will be developed. Therefore, clear understanding of the communication cycles is crucial for studying the behavioral and communication patterns, people resort to, in order to reduce their uncertainty about each other. The key paradigm of the uncertainty reduction theory falls under the premise that people feel uncomfortable when they know nothing about each other, and the communication process between two communicators is turned into getting to know as much information as possible about each other. The uncertainty reduction makes collocutors feel less uncomfortable. However, considering the basic theorems of the theory, it should be emphasized that the actual importance of the uncertainty can be explained by the communicational pattern of staying careful and attentive with the strangers unless their motives and intentions are clear. Assuming that the uncertainty reduction increases the communication effectiveness, it should be emphasized that uncertainty is often regarded as a stimulating factor for reducing it. Therefore, the core assumption claims that uncertainty is perceived like an unpleasant irritant; therefore, people try to reduce it by applying various communication strategies. Consequently, considering the key stages of the uncertainty reduction Levine and Sang-Yeon (2010) outline the key information that can be obtained during each. The entry stage is featured with finding out the sex, age, social and financial statuses, and other common (mainly demographic) pieces of information the communicator is featured with. As a rule, the communication process, as well as the selection of the communication strategy, is stipulated by the commonly accepted norms. In general, people stay within the frames of the formal communicational paradigm. The communicators observe each other, and the way, the observation is performed, the authoritarian communication frames can be defined. Therefore, the observation may be performed in the circumstances of a “classroom”, when a person studies and observes the other communicator from the superior position, or in the circumstances of free communication, while all the communicators are equal. However, as Salwen and Stacks (1996) emphasize, these observations are mainly passive. Knobloch and Solomon (1999), in their turn, claim that passive communication strategies may be extended up to the second stage, and be applied along with the set of active patterns. However, the observation circumstances may be created upon mutual agreement (either active or passive). Interactive strategies are mainly common for the third communication phase, and these are incompatible with the authoritarian strategy, since both communicators study each other on the equal bases (Kramer, 2004). Research Synthesis In accordance with the research by Barker and Gower (2009), the subjective uncertainty is often regarded as a function of the communicative context, while the individual features of the communicative strategy depend on the individual experience. Additionally, some psychologists (Dainton, 2003) emphasize that some behavioral patterns can affect the way the uncertainty is experienced. Therefore, instead of focusing on the matters of the subjective uncertainty, some researchers emphasize the necessity to measure the individual feelings and reactions that are often correlated with the uncertainty effects. (Liu and Lee, 2008) Additionally, some researchers claim that the quick passing to the third communication phase (which is featured with the inclination to reach particular decisions in advance, regardless of the possible outcomes) can be regarded as the strong intention to tame the subjective uncertainty, and make an attempt of feeling more comfortable. In the light of this fact, some communicational patterns can be outlined, based on the premise that people who tend to develop the communicational cycle faster tend to be more prejudiced and biased towards the particular groups of other people. Additionally, the subjective uncertainty reduction is often stimulated by the necessity to find some logic and structure in the communicative strategy of the opponent, as it is stated in the research by Kramer (2004). In the light of this assumption, the following premise can be made: some individuals who strive to realize the communication structure are generally more effective in identifying some specific details and features of the opponent’s character. These details may be as follows: Favorite sporting team; Preferred color; Some food preferences; Favorite TV shows, books, music, etc. Additionally, the communication strategy, used by the communicating people can help to define whether any of the collocutors is intended to reduce uncertainty. As a rule, uncertainty reduction is not a conscious process; therefore, an individual can follow the wrong communication path, and leave the uncertainty on the same level. Therefore, in accordance with the research by Knobloch and Solomon (1999) this can be defined with the test, the key task of which is creating a particular story with the given words and phrases. Moreover, the test may involve the test of authoritarianism that is intended to find out whether a person is used to take the leading position in the communication process. This factor is quite important for defining the patterns of the communication strategy, as well as forecasting the uncertainty levels in any given conversation moment. Additionally, considering all these factors, some individual prejudices can be traced (Dainton, 2003). In accordance with the research by Levine and Sang-Yeon (2010) the uncertainty may be experienced within the company of the acquainted people. The reasons may be various, however, this is closely associated with the change of some behavioral patterns, or emerging of some latent tendencies. Hence, the communication cycle regresses, and the communicative process can be terminated with the further regression. Therefore, there is a clear evidence, emphasized by Dainton (2003): hence it should be stated that the uncertainty is mainly associated with the context of the conversation, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, instead of manipulating subjective uncertainty Barker and Gower (2009) emphasize the importance of the personal reaction on the uncertainty, and calculation of the discomfort level. However, if the outcomes of the communication level can not be forecasted, the key emphasis should be made on the motivational factors of reducing the uncertainty. Considering the sociological aspect of the uncertainty reduction, the research by Kramer (2004) should be considered. Hence, the uncertainty levels within the communication networks (teams, workgroups, etc.) depend on the intensiveness of the information exchange process. Hence, the uncertainty represents some communicational imbalance, while some people derive information from others without providing in return. As Salwen and Stacks (1996) state, the uncertainty levels keep changing, while communicators unconsciously increase the uncertainty levels for the other team members. Another factor that affects uncertainty is linked with the involvement of a person into the information exchange process. Therefore, exclusion increases uncertainty for the excluded individual, while it stays on the same level for those who are still involved (Liu and Lee, 2008). As a rule, this principle is not working in the tete-a-tete communication. Conclusion The uncertainty reduction theory is intended to explain the communication process between two communicators, or within a group of people in the circumstances of the information lack. Therefore, if people do not have sufficient information about each other, they experience discomfort, and resort to all the possible and allowed communication strategies in order to decrease the uncertainty level, and advance the communication phase. Considering the fact that the uncertainty reduction process is generally divided into three phases that are featured with the particular communicational and behavioral patterns. These phases involve may involve passive, active, and interpersonal communication, the key aim of which is to find out as much details and facts, as possible. Related researches are aimed at studying the communication strategies and habits of the individuals. Therefore, the uncertainty reduction theory can be helpful in identifying prejudices, authoritarian inclinations, and communicative adaptability principles. Reference List Barker, R. T., & Gower, K. (2009). Use of Uncertainty Reduction and Narrative Paradigm Theories in Management Consulting and Teaching: Lessons Learned. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(3), 338-341 Dainton, M. (2003). Equity and Uncertainty in Relational Maintenance. Western Journal of Communication, 67(2), 164 Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (2000). Human Communication Theory and Research: Concepts, Contexts, and Challenges (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the Sources and Content of Relational Uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261. Kramer, M. W. (2004). Managing Uncertainty in Organizational Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levine, T. R., Sang-Yeon, K. (2010). Social Exchange, Uncertainty, andCommunication Content as Factors Impacting the Relational Outcomes of Betrayal. Human Communication, 13(4), 303-318. Liu, C., & Lee, H. (2008). Cross-Cultural Communication. Review of Business Research,8(6), 138 Salwen, M. B., & Stacks, D. W. (Eds.). (1996). An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Read More