When Ignorance Is Bliss The Role of Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Abstract

Three studies were conducted with the goal to articulate and test models for integrating the concept of motivation to reduce uncertainty into the axiomatic structure of uncertainty reduction theory. Multiple models were considered, each model defining motivation to reduce uncertainty in a different way. Motivation to reduce uncertainty was dtfined as a scope condition (Model 2), as tolerance for uncertainty (Model 3), as a weighted function of uncertainty by its importance (Model 4), and as the diflerence between one's uncertainty level and one's tolerance for uncertainty (Models 5a and 5b). Each of these models was compared to the baseline model (Model I ) derived from the original presentation of the theory where leuel of uncertainty, by itself, serues as a determinant of various communication behaviors. Tests of these models in terms of their ability to predict information seeking and attraction reveal that none of the models provides a consistent integration of motivation to reduce uncertainty into uncertainty reduction theory. Rather, folerance for uncertainty (Model 3) isone of threedeterminants of information seeking, while level of uncertainty (Model I ) is one of three determinants of attraction. This inability to integrate motivation to reduce uncertainty into uncertainty reduction theory can be attributed to the consistent failure to find support for deviance and incentive value as determinants of tolerance for uncertainty, the rejection of Axiom 3 in uncertainty reduction theory (which specifies a positive relationship between uncertainty and information seeking), and the rejection of Theorem 17 (which specifies a negative relationship between information seeking and liking). ncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) was put forth over a decade ago as an explanation for certain U interpersonal communication behaviors displayed during initial interactions. The inability to predict and explain others' actions was offered as the central motivating force guiding behavior in first

Doubt Begets Doubt: Causal Uncertainty as a Predictor of Relational Uncertainty in Romantic Relationships

“…People are more likely to engage in information-seeking as an effort to reduce uncertainty when their tolerance for uncertainty is low (Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990). Consequently, because causally uncertain people are less tolerant of and more uncomfortable with ambiguity (Weary & Edwards, 1996), they may be especially motivated to reduce their uncertainty, even when the potential outcomes are negative.…”

The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes

“…It has been noted for some time that individuals expecting future interaction with other parties typically try to present themselves in socially appropriate ways and try to appear as more positive and friendly (Kellermann and Reynolds, 1990;Shaffer and Ogden, 1986;Shaffer et al, 1987). More specifically, in situations in which individuals had to make award allocations and expected future interactions, Shapiro (1975) found that the images individuals projected to others became more salient.…”

The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis

“…Shortened versions of established instruments were used to keep the number of survey items manageable; in all cases, we selected the items factor analyses have indicated load the highest. The uncertainty reduction scale contained five items adapted from Kellerman and Reynolds (1990) that assess how well the participant feels he or she knows each individual character (e.g., "How well do you think you can predict X's feelings and emotions? "), with answers ranging from "very well" to "not well at all."…”