Theory 8: Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Analytical Text – Curiosity’s leading cause is knowledge

To begin with, when a person first meets a stranger, it is full with uncertainty. Uncertainty is often attached with high level of curiosity at the beginning of interpersonal relationship. Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) asserts that a need to reduce uncertainty will help to develop one’s relationship. This theory also claimed that uncertainty will be reduced when a person gain information about that particular strangers. However, different person would have different goals which motivate them to know more about the others. In this case, Charles Berger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory (1975) simply focuses on how human communication is used to gain knowledge and create understanding.

URT perceived that a person could boost his drive to reduce uncertainty through three circumstances – an anticipation of future relationship, incentive value and deviance. This can be further explained whereby a person is motivated to reduce uncertainty if he anticipates in building a long relationship with the stranger. He might also observe and learn how this particular person could benefit or punish him and someone might need to look at the stranger’s unusual behavior which either meets his expectations. Hence, all this three prior conditions are most likely driven someone to reduce uncertainty.

Apart from that, Berger (1975) sees a connection between the eight key variables of relationship development that he proposed and his concept of uncertainty. Berger used this connection to explain axiomatic theory – certainty about uncertainty. He also created 8 axioms from the connection in which he concluded that information seeking and reciprocity have a positive correlation with uncertainty. A high level of information seeking and reciprocity leads to high level of uncertainty. In this case, uncertainty does not reduce as a person seeks for more information and when there is mutual reciprocity whereas the other axioms give an opposite relation. For example, the more similar the individuals are, the lower the uncertainties are.

Based on the text above, it is true that curiosity’s leading cause is knowledge. The reason is that it takes knowledge to understand one’s behavior. It could be passive where he observes the stranger from distant or in an active way where he asked the third party who know the stranger well. Alternatively, he could just directly meet the stranger face to face to know more about each other. Furthermore, regardless of what the axioms are, all of them apply and provide knowledge as well as understanding instead of only reducing uncertainty. For instance, people need to know if they have similarities between them and the more a person’s self disclose him/herself, it signaled that this particular relationship might go on and telling indirectly that uncertainty is reduced.

On the other hand, Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds (1990) criticize some Berger’s idea pertaining the information seeking axiom where they questioned that “wouldn’t you want to know more about someone you like than someone you dislike?”. They also claimed that motivation for information seeking is increased by the anticipation of future relationship, incentive value and deviance. Michael Sunnafrank (1986) also challenged Berger’s conclusion where uncertainty reduction is the key to understand the early counters. Yet, Sunnafrank believes that the expected outcome value more accurately explains communication theory encounters.

In short, uncertainty needs to be reduced to develop a relationship but it often occurs at the beginning of the relationship. Berger’s UR theory attempts to look at how human communication could create person’s knowledge and understanding. URT figure out that anticipation of future relationship, incentive value and deviance could boost the motivation to reduce uncertainty. Berger also used the connection of eight key variables to develop relationship with UR concept to explain axioms theory. However, Berger’s idea on the axiom of information seeking is challenged by Kellermann and Reynolds. Meanwhile, Sunnafrank criticize this theory for seeing uncertainty reduction as the key understanding the early counters as the expected outcome could explain the encounters.

REFERENCES:

Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain Outcome Values in Predicted Relationships: Uncertainty Reduction Theory Then and Now. Human Communication Research, Vol. 13, (1). Pp. 34–38.

Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look At Communication Theory. 7^th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look At Communication Theory. 8^th Edition. Pp.125-136. New York: McGraw Hill.