Application of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Gabrielle Lafond and Mikayla Nogueira

Bryant University
 Lafond & Nogueira 2

Application of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Summary of URT

According to Miller (2002), it is crucial to study theory that encompasses the formation

of relationships. An applicable theory to relational development is uncertainty reduction theory,

which is highlighted in two distinct ways. First, the theory brings attention to early stages of

relationship development, otherwise known as an initial reaction. Second, it is concentrated on a

specific process within relational development, which is the idea of reducing uncertainty about

the individuals we may come to interact with (p. 153). In post-positivist tradition, uncertainty

reduction theory has made a great impact within the field of communication studies. The theory

was first introduced by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese (1975), who sought to better

understand the process of interaction during the initial stages of relational development (p.

163).

To start, uncertainty reduction theory holds the assumption that when in an initial

interaction with a stranger, people maintain a great desire to reduce uncertainty about each other

(Miller, 2002, p. 163). When examining this phenomenon, it can be seen from both a cognitive

and behavioral lens. Cognitive uncertainty asserts that individuals are unsure about the beliefs or

attitudes of the other individual in an interaction, whereas behavioral uncertainty demonstrates

the ambiguity we have about how the other individual will behave in an interaction (Miller,

2002, p. 163). Along with these two components of the theory, Berger and Calabrese (1975)

also distinguished between a predictive component and an explanatory component. In the case of

URT, a predictive component is the uncertainty about what a person will do, and an explanatory

component illustrates that we are uncertain about why a person did something (Miller, 2002, pp.
 Lafond & Nogueira 3

163-164). By understanding these fundamental elements, we can then attempt to discern how

communication is used to reduce uncertainty in initial reactions between strangers.

Continuing forward, uncertainty reduction theory is axiomatic theory, which essentially

means that the theory contains a variety of axioms, which are then formulated into

theorems. Overall, there are a total of seven axioms and twenty-one theorems. Many of the

theorems have been empirically supported, while others have yet to be tested directly. The

axioms and theorems, listed in Appendix A, showcase relational development in the context of

URT.

Berger decided to extend the theory by considering information seeking strategies, as

well as motivations for uncertainty reduction in an initial reaction. Berger (1979) developed three

information seeking strategies, with the first being the passive strategy. This strategy

involves observation of the other in various social atmospheres. More specifically, passive

strategies may be in the form of a reactivity search, during which one person

observes how the other responds to various stimuli. An additional form of passive strategy is a

disinhibition search, through which the other’s behavior is

observed in a variety of situations where social rules are not present. The passive strategy is

useful for gathering information about another person without the need to interact (Miller,

2002, p. 166). The next information-seeking strategy proposed by Berger is the active strategy,

which is a bit more involved. When utilizing active strategies, a person may look to others for

information about the individual they are observing or even manipulate the surrounding

environment to discretely gather more information (Miller, 2002, pp. 166-167). The third and

final way an individual might gather information about another person is through interactive

strategies. These strategies are more direct because the observer and “target person” engage in
 Lafond & Nogueira 4

conversation involving questions and self-disclosure. By utilizing this strategy, the information-

seeker hopes to continue learning information about the target through

reciprocal communication (Miller, 2002, pp. 166-167).

In an extended version of his theory, Berger (1979) contemplates three factors influential

in a person’s desire to minimize uncertainty. The first factor up for consideration is incentives,

which dictate that an individual will be more motivated to minimize uncertainty about another

person if there is a perception that connection with the other will be rewarding (Miller, 2002, p.

167). Next, Berger (1979) discusses deviation, a process where someone behaves in unexpected

ways, which may involve a violation of pre-conceived interaction norms or rules. In this case, a

person’s unusual behavior influences an observer’s desire to know more about this individual (p.

167). The final factor that increases an individual’s desire to minimize uncertainty is future

interaction. When an individual is confident that they will be speaking to a person in the

future, they may feel an increased need to reduce their level of uncertainty about that person in

the present moment. On the other hand, if the individual knows they do not want to engage in

future interactions with that person, there will be minimal motivation to reduce uncertainty (p.

167).

While Berger and Calabrese’s (1975) Uncertainty reduction theory has garnered support

from other researchers in the field of communication studies, important critiques have been made

over the years. Two significant critiques were leveled by Michael Sunnafrank (1986)

and duo Kathy Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds (1990). Sunnafrank (1986) posited that the

concept of uncertainty was less important than increasing positive outcomes in initial

interaction. As a result, he developed the predicted outcome value theory to explain how efforts

to minimize uncertainty during initial interaction are driven primarily by one’s desire
 Lafond & Nogueira 5

to understand the potential rewards and costs involved in interacting with another person (Miller,

2002, p. 169). Kellermann and Reynolds (1990), on the other hand, were unsatisfied with Berger

and Calabrese’s (1975) conceptualization of uncertainty level and motivation. More specifically,

Kellermann and Reynolds (1990) pointed out that people may experience an increased level

of uncertainty but feel little need to minimize it (Miller, 2002, p. 169). Given that Berger and

Calabrese (1975) labeled their construction of uncertainty reduction theory a “first effort,”

critiques of the theory are both expected and needed.

With the research completed by Berger and Calabrese (1975), uncertainty reduction

theory can be further conceptualized in a variety of modern examples. As mentioned by Miller

(2002), URT is one of the most influential communication theories to ever come to fruition.

The scope of URT allows communication scholars to examine situations that are mundane in

nature, or those situations that involve a more complex initial interaction, requiring in-depth

analysis using the theory.

Context of URT

Uncertainty reduction theory can be seen in action when Mikayla’s estranged sister

Amber entered back into her life. Amber Nogueira is the daughter of Michael Nogueira, and the

half-sister of Mikayla Nogueira. They have the same father, but different mothers. When

Amber’s mother divorced from Michael, it was incredibly challenging for

her. It became worse when Michael met Patrice, who eventually became his second wife. Amber

felt unloved and unvalued in this situation. Michael found someone new to love and wanted to

start his life over; whereas, Amber’s mother was depressed and could not provide for her fully.

When Michael and Patrice became pregnant with their second child, Mikayla, Amber was

unhappy. She was no longer the precious daughter of the family, so she left. She vanished from
 Lafond & Nogueira 6

Mikayla and the entire family’s life for nine years. No one knew where she was, what she may

be doing, or even if she was okay. She was simply gone.

Nine years after Amber disappeared, she decided to come back into Mikayla’s life. It was

on a cold day in December when Mikayla was looking through her unread emails and saw

the subject line, “I’m your sister.” When she opened it, it was a long email from Amber

expressing that she was incredibly sorry for vanishing after all this time. Who was Amber? To

Mikayla, Amber was a complete stranger. She had no idea who she

was. She vanished from her life when she was only three years old, and the family never spoke

of her. It was hard for Mikayla to read that email for the first time. She even had to ask her

parents who Amber was because she did not remember.

After Mikayla’s parents became aware of the email, they decided to invite Amber to

their home. It had been nine years since Amber had stepped foot into the Nogueira home, so for

Mikayla it was really a stranger visiting. The initial interaction between Amber and Mikayla was

bleak and dubious because Mikayla had significant cognitive and behavioral uncertainty. They

engaged in small talk and sat a far distance from one another across the couch. Mikayla did not

really know what to say to this stranger who was apparently her sister. Mikayla began to ask

questions in an effort to learn about Amber and feel less

uncomfortable. The questions asked were simply scraping the surface, such as “How are you

doing?” or “Are you excited for Christmas?” which all would receive a straight to-the-point

answer. Yet, as time went on, the discussions became more involved and more intimate

questions were asked. With more time to talk, Mikayla and Amber began to make direct eye-

contact and decrease their physical distance. Eventually, as they began to discuss the family

and what they had in common, their exchange rate became balanced. For Mikayla,
 Lafond & Nogueira 7

this initial interaction with a stranger was no ordinary one, because she was meeting the sister

that she did not realize she had.

Display of URT

When examining the context between Mikayla and Amber, the highest level of uncertainty is

apparent in the initial moment where Mikayla saw her sister Amber for the first time

in nine years. When Amber entered the home, she looked at Mikayla and greeted her. She

attempted to hug Mikayla, but Mikayla backed away. This is in contrast with Axiom One

and Axiom Two (included in Appendix A), because Amber’s verbal greeting and attempt to hug

Mikayla only served to increase Mikayla’s overall feelings of uncertainty about the interaction. It

can be argued that the level of uncertainty was increased because Mikayla perceived Amber as a

stranger; whereas Amber thought of Mikayla as her sister, despite the fact that she had not seen

her in nine years. As was stated previously, Berger (1979) established three factors that influence

an individual’s desire to reduce uncertainty. One of these factors, deviation, deals specifically

with the violation of social norms or rules during an

interaction. Mikayla’s negative reaction to Amber’s attempt at a hug demonstrates that Amber

was violating one of Mikayla’s implicit, or unspoken, rules. In sum, social norms and rules can

dictate whether a person’s behavior is perceived by another individual as appropriate within the

context of their interaction.

Down together in the den, they sat on opposite

sides of the couch and uncomfortably snacked on nuts. Amber began to ask questions about her

day-to-day routine, such as “How is school going?” to which Mikayla responded in a concise

manner. In an effort to reciprocate, Mikayla asked Amber questions, such as “Are you excited

for the holiday?” In concordance with Axiom Three, Mikayla began to experience
 Lafond & Nogueira 8

a gradual decrease in uncertainty as she became more comfortable speaking with

Amber. This Axiom posits that as individuals engage in information seeking

strategies, uncertainty levels will eventually decline.

As the conversation progressed, Mikayla and Amber began to find things in common and

ask questions regarding topics such as makeup, writing, movies, and more. They began to then

discuss the elephant in the room, which was Amber’s disappearance from the family for nine

years. Amber recognized Mikayla’s discomfort and decided to explain why she had left for so

long. The shift toward more intimate topics of conversation and Amber’s decision to take over

the conversation as she explained her prolonged absence demonstrate Axiom Four and

Axiom Five of URT, respectively. In support of Axiom 4, as the conversation between Mikayla

and Amber shifted into a discussion of more intimate topics, Mikayla’s level

of uncertainty decreased. Furthermore, Amber’s extended discussion of her absence

demonstrated a shift from high reciprocity to low reciprocity communication, indicating a lower

presence of uncertainty within the interaction. Using an interactive information-seeking

strategy, Mikayla made an effort to ask intimate questions about Amber’s disappearance, and in

return, Amber provided in-depth answers that Mikayla was seeking.

Although Amber did not have contact with her father over the course of nine years, she

expressed her love for him and how much she cared for him. When Mikayla heard Amber say

this, her face lit up because her father was her best friend and she felt excited to talk about him.

For Mikayla, it was significant that she shared the same dad with Amber. They were able to talk

about fond memories that involved their dad. Amber went on to share stories of what she used to

do with their father when she was young, and Mikayla would respond with memories of her own.

This exhibits Axiom Six, which states that similarities between individuals reduce
 Lafond & Nogueira 9

uncertainty. As Mikayla and Amber bonded over their father, Mikayla felt more relaxed within

the interaction, decreasing her uncertainty. The final Axiom states that decreases in uncertainty

produce increases in liking. This can be applied to the interaction between Mikayla

and Amber because as Mikayla and Amber continued to talk to one another, Mikayla felt excited

that she had a sister. She began to take a liking towards her sister and began to look forward to

seeing her more. She even invited her over to celebrate Christmas with them in the coming

weeks. This correlates with the motivation of incentives because for Mikayla, having a sister was

rewarding, and she wanted to continue reducing her uncertainty.

Yet, there was a lot about Amber that Mikayla did not know. Soon after meeting her

sister at the age of twelve, Mikayla came to learn that Amber was not exactly the type

of sister she expected her to be. Amber had dropped out of high school and never had a job.

She lived on disability, even though she was incredibly capable of having a job. As more time

passed, Amber visited less and less, and Mikayla felt like her sister was disappearing all over

again. Now, Mikayla and her sister do not talk, and she has not seen her in years. Mikayla’s

perception of her sister during their initial interaction can be considered in terms

of Berger’s (1979) prospect of future interaction. After Mikayla learned of Amber’s

irresponsibility and lack of motivation to see her, she lost the desire to see Amber

again. Therefore, Mikayla lost incentive and had no motivation for future interaction.

Commentary of URT

Uncertainty reduction theory is applicable in most initial

interactions with regard to relational development; however, there are certain case-by-case

scenarios that put in to question the theory’s reliability and validity. Mikayla and Amber’s initial

interaction was not typical, considering that they were siblings but had been estranged for most
 Lafond & Nogueira 10

of their lives. With that being said, it is a unique case because Mikayla saw Amber as a stranger,

whereas Amber was putting in more effort to form a sisterly relationship with

Mikayla. Uncertainty reduction theory was primarily formulated to analyze the initial interaction

between two complete strangers; however, Mikayla and Amber’s situation demonstrates that the

circumstances of initial interactions may vary.

Due to Mikayla’s previous knowledge of her sister’s existence and the history behind

her disappearance from the family, it could be argued that her level of uncertainty going in to the

first interaction with her sister was unusually high. Had Amber been a complete stranger,

the amount of uncertainty experienced by Mikayla may have been lower. This claim is supported

by the negation of Axioms One and Two in the analysis of Amber and Mikayla’s interaction. In a

study conducted by Lalljee and Cook (1973) it was found that strangers who interacted during

a nine-minute period experienced a steady increase in spoken words per minute throughout the

duration of this time. However, this finding was not applicable to the scenario between Amber

and Mikayla because Mikayla was hesitant to reduce uncertainty about her sister well past

the nine-minute mark. In other words, Mikayla did not match her sister’s increasing level

of verbal communication or the intimacy level of topics discussed until quite some time had

passed.

Conclusion

Uncertainty reduction theory was developed by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese

(1975) with an intent to formulate a model specifically applicable to the first stage of interaction

between strangers. This model is guided by seven axioms and twenty-one theorems and seeks to

understand the ways in which individuals attempt to reduce cognitive and behavioral

uncertainties about another person. They further distinguish between predictive components and
 Lafond & Nogueira 11

explanatory components of uncertainty, while also mentioning that there are specific

information-seeking and motivational strategies to

help further the uncertainty. Despite empirical support for the theory, scholars have taken the

liberty to critique the theory’s conceptualization of motivation to interact. Uncertainty reduction

theory was then applied to a scenario between sisters, yet strangers, Mikayla and Amber. This

scenario is a wonderful application of the theory, but also does a phenomenal job of analyzing

some of the critiques that the theory brings about. Formulated over forty years ago, uncertainty

reduction theory continues to play an important role in the field of communication studies

because it allows scholars, students, and the genuinely curious to apply and understand the

theory in regard to relational development.

 Lafond & Nogueira 12

References

Berger, C. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development

of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles and R. N. St Clair (Eds.), Language and social

psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and

beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human

Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2958.1975.tb00258.x

Miller, K. (2002). Theories of communication in developing relationships. In Communication

Theories: Perspectives, Contexts, and Processes (Vol. 2, pp. 153–173). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill Companies.

Kellerman, K., & Reynolds, R. (1990). When ignorance is bliss: The role of motivation to reduce

uncertainty in uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 17 (1), 5-

75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00226.x.

Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. (1973). Uncertainty in first encounters. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 26(1), 137-141. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034226

Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of

uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13 (1), 3-

33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00092.x.

 Lafond & Nogueira 13

Appendix

Axioms & Theorems of Uncertainty Reduction Theory

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.

2. As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease in an

initial interaction situation. In addition, decreases in uncertainty level will cause increases in

nonverbal affiliative expressiveness.

3. High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information seeking behavior. As

uncertainty levels decline, information seeking behavior decreases.

4. High levels of uncertainty in a relationship cause decreases in the intimacy level of

communication content. Low levels of uncertainty produce high levels of intimacy.

5. High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty

produce low reciprocity rates.

6. Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities produce increases

in uncertainty.

7. Increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking; decreases in uncertainty level

produce increases in liking.

From these axioms came about the following theorems (Berger & Calabrese, 1975):

1. Amount of verbal communication and nonverbal affiliative expressiveness are positively

related.

2. Amount of communication and intimacy level of communication are positively related.

 Lafond & Nogueira 14

3. Amount of communication and information seeking behavior are inversely related.

4. Amount of communication and reciprocity rate are inversely related.

5. Amount of communication and liking are positively related.

6. Amount of communication and similarity are positively related.

7. Nonverbal affiliative expressiveness and intimacy level of communication content are

positively related.

8. Nonverbal affiliative expressiveness and information seeking are inversely related.

9. Nonverbal affiliative expressiveness and reciprocity rate are inversely related.

10. Nonverbal affiliative expressiveness and liking are positively related.

11. Nonverbal affiliative expressiveness and similarity are positively related.

12. Intimacy level of communication content and information seeking are inversely related.

13. Intimacy level of communication content and reciprocity rate are inversely related.

14. Intimacy level of communication content and liking are positively related.

15. Intimacy level of communication content and similarity are positively related.

16. Information seeking and reciprocity rate are positively related.

17. Information seeking and liking are negatively related.

18. Information seeking and similarity are negatively related.

19. Reciprocity rate and liking are negatively related.

20. Reciprocity rate and similarity are negatively related.

21. Similarity and liking are positively related.