Uncertainty Reduction Theory & Building Relationships.

Post Reply New Topic

Okay. This is a communication theory by Charles Berger that I have extended on. I have extended on this a lot. This theory was part of my QCS test (SAT equiv. I wager) paper.

For those who don't want a full-blown dissertation.
This is the basic construct, the skeleton, on the test paper:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“According to Charles Berger, an expert in communication theory, getting to know another person can be understood as a process of trying to reduce feelings of uncertainty in the interaction so that both people feel increasingly confident and secure.
Berger proposes a series of axioms (basic principles) linking the concept of uncertainty with certain key variables of relationship development (shown in boldface):

Axiom 1: As the amount of verbal communication increases, the level of uncertainty in the relationship decreases. As uncertainty decreases, the amount of verbal communication increases.

Axiom 2: As the expression of nonverbal warmth increases, uncertainty decreases. As uncertainty decreases, nonverbal warmth increases.

Axiom 3: High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behaviour. Low levels of uncertainty cause decreases in information-seeking-behaviour.

Axiom 4: High levels of uncertainty restrain the intimacy level of communication content. Low levels of uncertainty promote high levels of intimacy in communication content

Axiom 5: High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity

Axiom 6: Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities increase uncertainty

Axiom 7: Increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking; decreases in uncertainty produce increases in liking.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s a work in progress that’s developed for over 2 years and now I’m finally starting to write this down (It's about 4000 words now). This construct is incomplete.
If you could, alert me to sentences/anything that you just plainly don’t get, so I can do some editing to make my meaning more clear.
I know what I mean but I want others to know what I mean too.
Bear with me as I try to explain. It's easier for me to see segments broken up and colour-coded. Hope it helps.
All right.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory- Using it to Build Relationships:
Axiom 1: As the amount of verbal communication increases, the level of uncertainty in the relationship decreases. As uncertainty decreases, the amount of verbal communication increases.

Axiom 2: As the expression of nonverbal warmth increases, uncertainty decreases. As uncertainty decreases, nonverbal warmth increases. (e.g comfortable silences, a knowing smile--> when an inside joke is shared**)

Axiom 3: High levels of uncertainty cause increases in direct information-seeking behaviour.("So, what music do you like?") Low levels of uncertainty cause decreases in this behaviour.

Axiom 4: High levels of uncertainty restrain the intimacy level of communication content. Low levels of uncertainty promote high levels of intimacy in communication content. i.e the more someone feel comfortable with another, the more true information they reveal about themselves.

Axiom 5: High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity. (Reciprocity is the exchange of the same kinds of information: High = "I like rock music, and the bands A, B and C"--> " Yes, rock music is good. I like A, E, F and guitars" notice they are very linear and rigid structure. Because the conversation is parallel there is a much lower probability and slower rate of identifying true similar interests. Low = more tangential conversation and random thoughts/making connections between seemingly unrelated topics, which can foray into the other person's interests**)

Axiom 6: Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities increase uncertainty** (This is why remaining in conversations of prolonged high reciprocity can cause hesitation, awkward silence while straining for a new topic or lead to the undesirable 'dead-ended conversation'.)

Axiom 7: Increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking; decreases in uncertainty produce increases in liking.

** Non sequiturs or 'randomness' can potentially have a positive impact of breaking tension and reducing uncertainty. It can fast track the formation of a relationship. Tangential conversation can change from jocular discourse to a deep conversation within a matter of minutes. It brings variety of topics to a conversation and gives the impression you are comfortable with the other person (opening up), and so their uncertainty will also decrease in response. The conversation will be less tensioned and more tangential in nature so you can access previously obscured common ground; thereby aiding most or all axioms, including
nonverbal:
I've found that it is important to form an initial inside joke with an acquaintance before or after a common interest is found, further reducing tension and increasing liking, and can be referred to in subsequent interaction.
Typically Before: Made from an external source: e.g. both of you witnessing a funny event.
Typically After: Made from an internal source: e.g. A play on words, a ‘science’ joke etc.
Do not overly refer to this joke otherwise the person may get bored quickly. The idea is to remain novel by waiting until a distinctly pertinent time.

You and the person can then share a knowing look or phrase in a seemingly unrelated context (in the view of a third party). This context will have certain qualities that at least remotely resemble the conditions when the initial joke was made. This often results in simultaneous bursts of laughter. No one else will get the "you had to be there" joke, thus increasing intimacy between you and the person.

Don't worry. As your uncertainty decreases with a person, you may find it easier and easier to identify such moments (or you may suddenly 'know'). The inside jokes will effortlessly evolve over time as you increase this form of intimacy.
You will find that a certain amount of grooming occurs in the relationship. You will find that you guide each other into each others personal interests, cutting away what is not relevant or mutually of interest. Discovering new interests together.
This is achieving a similar mental rhythm or ‘wavelength’ so that you are highly attuned to each others thoughts.
IN SAYING THIS, BEWARE OF FALLING INTO THE TRAP OF GROUPTHINK.
(I might put here later my hypothesis of why you, as a predominantly thinking type, are highly resistant to it. It just takes AGES to edit it all.)

This method can be used with multiple one-on-one and group relationships, within the same stable/structured setting or across many structured settings at the same time. e.g workplace, primary school. Thus you can categorise friends in various social contexts=s: e.g "Bus Friends", "English class friends", "Roommates"
The friends don't have to mix between categories. In fact I try not to introduce friends from different categories, as I find if their personalities/interests do not interrelate, they can be argumentative and try to make me "choose" between them.
It's up to you, but introduce friends that you think have a common ground other than knowing you.
What you may like about Friend A may be the very thing that Friend B is adverse to.

Setting Stability:
+It is easier to make a friend in primary school or kindergarten because of the stability of the setting. Classes in primary school typically remain the same for a year and everyone does the same activities at a certain time and sometimes formally/informally/designated locations. (E.g Maths in the morning; P.E on Wednesday; Recess at 10:05 to 10:40; that group of children like to eat lunch by that third oak tree.)

+High school is less stable as people start to specialise in different subjects and so classes are not static (At least in Australia). It helps to remember the weekly timetable of a person of interest (if they are not in all of your classes) to create routine. Recess is similar to that of primary school.

Last edited by PPParabola on 20 Sep 2008, 2:20 am, edited 4 times in total.

My construct is limited to use of stable settings.
University is an example of an unstable setting:
- Initial connexions made with a selected person in the first week (highest attendance rates) may be lost due to drop-out.

- People are on different degree trajectories and some basic courses overlap, (e.g. introduction to anatomy may be relevant to both someone starting a medical degree and another doing a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in dance technique).

- Lunch is not at a designated time. Different classes overlap by starting and finishing at different times; some may even start at 12:00! Lectures per subject are on one(ish) day per week. Your schedule is based on your courses, but even so, you are not necessarily required to go to university every day, as you would school-> You and a friend may both have five subjects, but only share one in common for the semester. Your subjects are spread over five days of the week, but your friend's subjects only occur on two days. Therefore, you only have one day (two days if you you rendezvous) of contact in the week, and time spent together is compromised, because your friend would have their subjects condensed on those two days. The rest of the time you are otherwise not required to spend time together.

- It is not mandatory to stay on campus during a break, so some people may go to the city for lunch, walk to the shops, go home for lunch, go to the other end of town to pay bills… many variables.[color=olive]Less people are actually based/live on campus

- It is not mandatory to attend all lectures if you don't want to. I don’t know how to predict a person’s attendance in this case as they can be rather sporadic.( Unlike public schools where education is free, you still had to attend every day. So it's an odd concept that people miss lectures at uni because EVERY SUBJECT COSTS MONEY.)

- Mode of transport: some people drive, others go on buses, bicycles

- Full time degree, part-time, person may also have job.
-->That said, certain degrees draw together people with similar interests.
College/High school/ university-->Strategy:Choosing curricular subjects in common with a friend's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m afraid I don’t know more about unstable settings or how to make friends in them. I’m in my Second year of university and have little success in making some and maintaining them (I don’t normally see them out of the curricular/contextual setting). I made one friend who left mid-semester because she didn’t like the course, Another was just doing the same course because it was required for his degree, so we never met again after he finished the semester.

NOTE ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTY THEORY: This construct is dependant on your “open” tangible mood i.e more comfortable with socialising. Some days I just don’t feel like it because my brain feels slower and too abstract and detail oriented for me to deal with so I have to concentrate mostly between reining it in, and focusing on my own interests, which is very draining. I call this “closed” tangential thinking. This includes anxious days pre-occupied with routine and particularities. 'Closed' thinking can indeed come across as being rigid to the outsider.

The Uncertainty Reduction construct relies heavily on 'open' tangibility.
If a person instigates a conversation with you when you are in the slower or an anxious mood, the above strategy will not be so effective as you are not in the right frame of mind. Therefore, the person may be first put off if you are “closed” but don’t worry. Try another day when you are feeling more happy and extroverted because they tend to forget and embrace the second opportunity.


Another limitation of this construct is that is this from the perspective of a female.
-->Male oriented constructs are required here.


Help?

Anyone have any thing else to add?

Can you see a pattern in this university setting?

Is this practical construct making sense?

Any advice on maintenance of friendships out of contexts?




Key points noted:

*Perceived physical safety
Making friends in situations that are categorically constant.
*University -->Use of an Academic Advisor
*College/High school/ university-->Strategy:Choosing curricular subjects in common with a friend's.
*Need to make culture-specific constructs or at least include them as common variables within the general construct.
*Agreed, there is a need for a construct of maintenance of friendships."contact for sake of contact"

Last edited by PPParabola on 20 Sep 2008, 4:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Your practical construct makes sense to me.

The patterns you may find in your university setting include:

1. people taking a class with you (you'd already noted some limitations here, with those dropping out and with not seeing people after the class ends)

2. people in the same degree path as you.

You'd noted you're in your 2nd year, and it'll be toward the end of this year or more toward the beginning of the next that you start seeing the same people in many classes. That is how it was for me. However, they did try to keep people in the same degree path in the same early elective classes so we could get to know each other. If you have an academic advisor, they may have some groups for whom they suggest the same section or time of a particular required class so you can be with those that you'll see next year and the following. This was in an engineering degree path.

Similarly, if you find someone in one of your classes that you get to know and may be taking the same classes next semseter, ask them which section they're signing up for in the next class so you can be in it together. If they look at you or react funny, you may have been too direct or may have too much uncertainty yet in that relationship. (also, see below)(uncertainty seems to be greater where people don't feel as physically safe, and that was certainly true for me as a female in university. I was much more cautious making friends with others than I was in high school, esp men. It was a big university!!)

3. People in a similar living or transportation situation as you.

Living situation: I lived in a dorm for the first two years (even though I could have lived with relatives nearby), and am still in contact (a number of years later) with some of those I first met in the dorms. We got to know each other's schedules, ate together, etc, forming a comfortable certainty that each of us was longing for, being away from home and shocked out of the routine of our previous years. Of course, some of those in the dorms were mean, but they were easily found out, and avoided. Fortunately, there were several very nice people that lived within a few doors of me and we got to know each other well. Better than high school, even, because unlike high school where we lived at home and had parents around, we discovered things together (another of the axioms), and protected each other to some degree (don't rely upon that - protect yourself).

Transportation situation: If you're not able to live on campus, people can commute together or ride the same bus together. This gives you time to develop the relationship. I did make lasting friends with those that commuted as well, even though I was on campus. They also had bus-buddies that they regularly rode with and waited for for some companionship on the ride home. To my commuter friends, their friendship with me provided them with a link to campus life, as well. They came with me to the dorms sometimes, and they met more people there.

That may or may not belong in the same construct as yours, but you could consider that friendship has value to each person. You may know a lot about certain subjects (because of your selective intense interest), may take good notes (I certainly didn't, and valued those friends that did), etc. To those friends whose note taking ability I treasured, I would lean upon them from time to time to clarify my notes, and they felt needed and secure in the relationship. Secure enough to ask me for something in return (help with homework), if that makes sense, and that decreases the uncertainty as well. You do take care that you're not being "used" but to me the value to each been a decent factor in relationships. I've had some friends who were always leaning on me and/or always upset or an emotional drain, and I did stop communicating with them because they were not of benefit to me. Sounds cold, I guess.


However if someone does look at you funny when you try to advance the relationship somewhat, you can consider pointing out some value to each of you to continue to see each other. "Since we'll be in the same class, I can take notes for you when you skip and likewise" or something. I worked out something where a friend and I skipped an early morning (and long hike across campus in the cold and dark winter mornings) class once a week, but on alternating days and both showed up on Fridays to trade notes. Didn't work for too long because I take poor notes. But we did end up studying together.

One thing you might consider checking out books on friendships (many are written for relationships/friendships between women) as some of them have good info. I found one, and don't know which it was, but it had the stages of friendships in women, that they are built, then tested, then strengthened, etc. It helped me to realize that a trial or fight may be necessary and not necessarily relationship-ending or the fault of my somewhat sub-par relationship skills. That thought is liberating.

I do still struggle with keeping in contact with people for the sake of keeping contact, and that redevelops uncertainty and tends to end old friendships. (probably ones with whom I was not seeing a real short-term benefit, and have not focused on the long-term benefit of still having them as a friend. bummer.)

Good luck!

RE1: slwilbur

*I'll try to clean up the Grammatical Person later*

Note: A subject in Australia is the same as a course and semester, the duration of which is 6 months.

Key points noted:
-Perceived physical safety
-Making friends in situations that are categorically constant.
-University -->Use of an Academic Advisor
-->Strategy:Choosing subjects that match a friend's.
-Need for culture-specific constructs or at least include culture as a variable within the general UR theoretical construct.
-Agreed, maintenance of friendships construct is required.

You've identified a very useful strategy:
If you are in same degree as a potential friend, you could agree on what basic courses you will do next semester that will benefit both of you. Doing a subject of similar interest, where large intent is to form a rapport with someone else, is similar to a common high-school strategy.

What you have discussed is valid and does indeed belong in the construct. You have sparked some thought. It also emphasises to me that more culture-specific constructs and strategies are required.

Let us assume, for example, that you are referring to it's application a college setting.

As I understand, college tuition fees are lumped together as a yearly cost, regardless of subjects taken, allowing for the college student to 'play the field' subject-wise. They have more freedom to find their niche before they choose to specialise into a degree and/or major. Do they attend every day, like school?
Thus, choosing mutual subjects with friends is quite appropriate approach.

In comparison, an Australian university student chooses subjects from a course list that pertains to their pre-determined degree and career path. The standard 2-unit university subject can cost anywhere between $500, to $1000 or significantly above for courses for more 'elite' degrees (NB: a student can enrol in about 6 subjects per semester). Majors are chosen after the first year. So the freedom 'to play the field' and use the above approach is limited by their degree paths from day one.

It's harder to keep in contact this way as one differentiates into a degree further in a short timeframe. One must restart the relationship-building process as the friend's courses become irrelevant.
The approach can be used to a degree in an Australian setting, despite cost: Both university and college fees can be deferred/subsidised through government assistance(if you are a citizen) and other scholarships, so the impact of fees are not immediately felt in most cases.

Other barriers of using college oriented strategy in an Australian university context:
-Smaller percentages of students live in university dorms because it's very costly(not included in tuition fees). So it's mainly remote and international students living on/close to campus that have more success in bonding in a college-community fashion; local commuters/those still living at home are not as exposed to the college-community culture.
-No fraternities or sororities( Do they even exist I don't know if it's made up :/)
- Yearly cohorts are not clustered together: A third year and a first year could be doing exactly the same subject.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted your meaning. Or if I'm wrong about these differences between college and university.
I don't have enough information on colleges other than from college websites and second-hand accounts; so I'm not really sure if things like sororities even exist outside of films and maybe the sites are some extended joke.
I like the idea of attending college because, from what you have described, it shares similarities with high school and offers a more stable environment with more opportunities for creating routine and relationships.

I will try to make practical implications that are applicable to both high school and college settings, when fleshing out the stable v.s unstable settings of my more general construct.

You've given me something to investigate further.
I look forward to more insight.

Last edited by PPParabola on 21 Sep 2008, 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just to be abundantly clear, I am in the US.
There may be a technical difference between the terms University and College, but I have been using them interchangeably. Here, the University you describe is very similar to what I've experienced - you pay per class and some do "play the field" to some degree. There are a number of classes common to many fields of study (math, physics) that you could start taking if you're not sure what specific track you'd like to enter. There are also the required electives that are outside of the general area (if I'm in technology, they make me take history, and if I'm in history, they make me take some sort of math class) that can be worked on at the same time as some "sampler classes" to determine which specific area you'll enter. I'm not aware of any "college" that you pay a set fee and take whatever classes you want. In that instance, you'd still have to complete the required courses for your major, so you'd still have to pay "extra" to play the field. Some here will spend a little time on a sampler class, which will cover topics in different fields, and you can pursue further or talk to profs in different departments to help you determine your field of interest. I changed my major in my 2nd year, and it didn't cost me much extra, because I had not changed it far from what it was, and had not completed many major-specific classes.

Sororites and Fraternities do exist, and I've always stayed (far, far) away from them. As I'd noted, I was a at a big big school (at the time, 2nd in the nation for size), and many scary things happen there, especially to the less-socially-aware, like me. I know many people join them and party with them and are just fine, but no thanks!

I can understand that it's not cost effective to live in a dormitory. Many people here do not, and it makes sense financially for those attending school close to home. Some will not attend school close to home so they can "get away from" their parents. I was fortunate to be able to attend a school I wanted to attend, away from home, and lived in the dorm partly to help develop friendships. I did have an option to live with a relative nearby, but opted not to so as to not impose and so as to be closer to campus life.

Regarding 1st year and 3rd year doing the same class, we usually take them in a fairly prescribed order. Usually 1st year and 3rd year people are doing different things and are in different places in their educational journeys. I found that the off-subject and common classes were good for learning how to tackle problems and how to think about things and helped prepare me for the later classes, and many were in fact required prerequisites. Indeed, some 2/3 of your college career should build on the previous class, therefore enforcing some sort of order.

Hit me with any more questions that you have regarding differences or anything else, or if I've missed anything in your last post.

*summarise mainpoints RE2:slwilbur*

Thanks for dispelling my college misconceptions, especially about the payment schemes!
I really hate to rely on websites and second-hand accounts for their round-about information.
But I respect your information, as you are very direct.

In light of clarification, I can surely make a viable framework for high school, college and university. But still make some suggestions specific to each setting.
It makes things easier.

I will have to test your suggestions in my university environment, of course.

Any further insight about college is appreciated.

This is an interesting thread. Lots of good stuff.

Two problems:

1) Some people insist on establishing dominance and can't relate to anyone at all until someone wins. They would prefer to win, but can accept a subservient position. The one thing that they can not accept, which has no room in their minds, is equality or the possiblity of a partnership. They see it as a vacuum that must be filled before we can move on. I believe this is at the heart of Asperger's, and that everything hinges on it. Personally, I did not instinctively understand this at all. When I half-understood, I casually gave it away because I didn't care, didn't think it mattered. That is the kiss of death. Now that I do understand it, I refuse to play. I want mutual respect or nothing.

2) As a predominantly thinking type, trying to talk to a predominantly non-thinking type, I sometimes have trouble finding any common ground at all. Even when we find a subject that the person seems to like, he refuses to dig deeper. As we try to find that common ground, we both become increasingly stressed. The solution is to become fully conscious and accept that we will never connect. We can still work together and be civil. Unfortunately, non-thinkers can't do that, either. They feel threatened by simple civility without the warmth. So they blame the stress on any odd little difference and invent a problem out of thin air.

To call it "closed thinking" is the opposite of the truth. Some people are closed to any thinking at all, and want you to just go with the flow. I am "closed" to certain things for a reason. If someone makes a racial slur and demands that I laugh along, that certainly ruins the flow. If you invite me to participate in the torture of small animals, you might detect that I suddenly become rigid and unreadable. Changing the subject is usually the best I can do. Unfortunately, a person like that will most likely drift to an equally offensive topic, and we eventually realize that we have nothing in common.

"Setting Stability" is a big deal, but I don't think explains as much as age.
Little kids are more flexible and make friends more easily, and if you hold onto those friendships they go deeper. The older you get, the harder it is to get to that warm, fuzzy place and that level of trust. Not impossible, it's just not the same.

You can create a more stable setting by working together on a project or joining a group. Working together on something you really care about is the biggest thing. Find your passion. Become the guru if possible.

That's a biggie, and not only because it's the same people. Part of it is that the subjects themselves are more interesting. For example, first year psychology is exceedingly lame, while third year psychology gets into some really interesting stuff.
Also, the people are different. The silly, non-serious students drop out, and the people who don't like the subject of your major go in different directions. So you have a higher ratio or people who really are interesting.

The stages of friendship are worth studying, but think of it as food for thought, not gospel. I've never seen me in a book or anything like that, so I had to figure it out for myself. My instincts are backward. Until I knew this, it was a source of conflict.

For example, when meeting a new person, most people ask questions in this order:
Do you like me? Do I like you? Do you respect me? Do I respect you?
My instincts are exactly the reverse:
Do I respect you? Do you respect me? Do I like you? Do you like me?
So, by the time I get around to deciding whether I actually like someone, he is often so thoroughly confused that he has given up. Realizing this basic difference has lead to solutions.
Condemning yourself for a basic difference leads to problems, but understanding and accepting the differences allows you to adapt and make allowances for their limitations.