————————————————–
Meeting my first date
(An Analysis Using Uncertainty Reduction Theory)
by Quincy B. Feliscuzo
COMA101
Prof. Antonino Salvador S. de Veyra
March 27, 2008
————————————————–
Communication Situation
My best friend asked if I would like to have a date. I said “yes” because I haven’t been on a date. So he asked their neighbor, who was a girl, for a date. As days passed, I grew curious about this girl and I kept on asking him about her. I asked my best friend about her looks, and about her attitude which my friend answered with each bit of information. In this way I was able to acquire information about my date.
On the day of our date I became more and more uncertain if I want to meet this girl. But my best friend encouraged me to meet this person. I was the first to arrive in the meeting place and I was nervous. After waiting for almost an hour, she suddenly arrived. I was standing under the mango tree while she was walking towards me. Then she greeted me. I also greeted her as we begin to walk towards a bench. I was the first to introduce myself then she followed. During that time I was full of uncertainties but as we engaged ourselves in a conversation, I felt a relief.
But it doesn’t mean that I am ready to tell her my story. At that time I was very hesitant in giving my personal information and so with her. She suddenly broke the tension by smiling at me. Her smile led me to smile back. We are still feeling each other. Then we opened up, shared our stories and our experiences. When she asked me about my school, I learned from her that she was the daughter of our high school principal. Something I never knew before. We continued talking about our family and the things that we like to do. As our conversation continues I feel comfortable with her and vice versa.
Analysis
My communication situation fits perfectly to the chosen theory which is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Based on my observations about my experience I came to realize that dating is a good example for testing the complexity of the theory. Let us examine the situation by using the axioms that Charles Berger formulated. Berger and Calabrese used several studies as a guide to develop the foundations of Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Research and theory development was steeped in the post-positivist tradition, using scientific methodology and deductive reasoning to reach their conclusions (Miller, 176). The results of the studies form the foundation of the theory, seven axioms. The following are the axioms set forth by Berger in his theory:
Axiom 1: Strangers enter an interaction with high levels of uncertainty about the other. However, as they begin to talk to one another, the level of uncertainty decreases. In turn, as the uncertainty decreases, the interactants will talk more.
Axiom 2: As nonverbal expressive communication increases, uncertainty levels decrease, and vice versa.
Axiom 3 High levels of uncertainty prompt strangers to ask more questions of the other. As uncertainty decreases, so does the posing of questions.
Axiom 4 High levels of uncertainty in a relationship lead to less sharing and emotional intimacy. Low levels of uncertainty allow for more sharing and emotional intimacy
Axiom 5: High levels of uncertainty lead to more symmetrical question exchanges in interaction. As uncertainty decreases, so does the need for an equal exchange of talk.
Axiom 6: Personal similarity will decrease uncertainty about another, while dissimilarity will produce higher levels of uncertainty
Axiom 7: An increase in uncertainty will lead to a decrease in liking. A decrease in uncertainty will lead to an increase in liking.
The first axiom stated that there is high level of uncertainty present at the entry phase. But as the two of us engaged ourselves into a conversation our level of uncertainty decreases while the level of conversation increases. This is true because when I first saw my date, we have all kinds of uncertainty towards each other. But I only realized it after a few minutes of talking to her that my uncertainties and anxieties are lessened.
The second axiom states that as nonverbal expressive communication increases, uncertainty levels decrease, and vice versa. The situation agrees with this axiom because when I met my date were very formal and have lots of uncertainties but when she smiled at me, she broke the tension between us and this nonverbal expression lead me to smileback at her. It made me feel better and our conversation continued in a lighter mode, as our uncertainties with each continue to reduce.
The third axiom states that high levels of uncertainty prompt strangers to ask more questions of the other. As uncertainty decreases, so does the posing of questions. In my chosen situation, we observe that I kept asking my best friend about my date. He answered my questions and I was able to get information about her at the same time my uncertainty about her is reduced.
Berger’s fourth axiom states high levels of uncertainty in a relationship lead to less sharing and emotional intimacy. Low levels of uncertainty allow for more sharing and emotional intimacy. This very because when I first saw her, she greeted me and I in return greeted her. The level of intimacy in our conversation is slim. However as we talked for a few minutes we became more and more comfortable with each other. We were actually disclosing in an intimate conversation. She asked me things related to love and how many ex-girlfriends do I have. These questions gave her the idea that I did not have ex-gfs and she acquired information that made her reduce her uncertainty towards me.
The fifth axiom stated High levels of uncertainty lead to more symmetrical question exchanges in interaction. As uncertainty decreases, so does the need for an equal exchange of talk. This axiom explains that when two people are in a conversation, they are hesitant at first to give out their own information but when the tension is broken through nonverbal expression they begin to talk again and as they become more familiar with each other they tend to share their own personal information on the intimate level. The more they open up, the more they become comfortable with each other.
The sixth axiom Personal similarity will decrease uncertainty about another, while dissimilarity will produce higher levels of uncertainty. This axiom explains that when I have learned her background I suddenly realized that she was the daughter of our school principal something I never knew before. It opened up in a much more comfortable situation and gave us enough topics to talk about.
The seventh axiom stated that an increase in uncertainty will lead to a decrease in liking. A decrease in uncertainty will lead to an increase in liking. This means that the more we talk about ourselves the more our uncertainty reduces. And because of this, we feel comfortable with each other, which only mean that we are beginning to like each other. For instance, when I told her that I studied in this particular school and she said that her mother was the high school principal in that school. As our uncertainties lessened, our liking started to rise up.
Eleven years after Uncertainty Reduction Theory was introduced, Berger published Uncertain Outcome Values in Predicted Relationships: Uncertainty Reduction Theory Then and Now. His goal was to defend his theory in new contexts and modify it, as necessary. Berger later proposed three types of information seeking behavior, passive (watching the interactant for clues in reactions to stimuli), active (posing questions to other individuals about the interactant), and interactive (posing direct questions to the interactant) (Miller, 178). Later research by Berger and Bradac (1982) indicated that disclosures by interactants may lead them to be judged as more or less attractive. The judgment will determine whether the judge will continue to reduce their uncertainties or end the relationship. Berger also acknowledges the works of Gundykunst, et al (1985) and Parks & Adelman (1983) to extend Uncertainty Reduction Theory to the realm of more established relationships. Planalp & Honeycutt (1985) studies the introduction of new uncertainty to existing relationships. Their findings indicate that uncertainty in long-term relationships usually impacts negatively on the relationship. Berger also discusses how motivation to find out about others can come from anticipation of future interaction, incentive value, and deviance. Lastly, Berger reveals the different strategies, passive, active, and interactive, that are used to remove doubt about others.
In the theory, Berger addresses the humanistic feelings of understanding of the people in unfamiliar relationships and the appeal we have in order to reduce those anxieties by knowing more about others. However, as stated before this theory is scientific because Berger has used all five elements of the scientific model to validate his theory.
First, Berger has a clear explanation of the data regarding all aspects of his theory. He did this by giving us a precise definition of his theory’s purpose. To further illustrate his theory, Charles Berger outlined seven axioms defining how and why performing key actions reduce uncertainty. By telling us what and why, he successfully makes the theory scientific.
Point two of the scientific model is the prediction of the future. Berger accomplished this task by providing us seven axioms that can take form of cause and effect statement. For example, the first axiom stated that as verbal communication increases the level of uncertainty between the pair decreases. This means that the more I talk to my date the more I will know from her, therefore the less uncertainty I will have towards my date. Because of this we gain knowledge about each other and predictability about her and our relationship. This axiom as well as the other six axioms proposed by Berger, clearly defines how future interactions between us will proceed.
Relatively simple, the third aspect of the scientific method is another achievement of Berger. The URT is a simple and clear theory. Berger’s if/then statements of his axioms provide a simple to the point factors that are easily understood. The direct approach he took is to explain his theory makes it very easy to classify the URT as a scientific model.
Moving right along to the fourth criteria of the scientific model is testable hypothesis. Once again, the URT meets the requirements for the scientific model. Berger based the statements he used to support his theory on an empirical observation and testing in order to formulate these accredited axioms. Even if you question Berger’s testing, it is easy to see the truth in these axioms from our daily experiences. For instance, I have developed my relationship with my girlfriend with merely exchange of more information with each other. Or if its not enough, test Berger’s axioms by performing experiments of your own. Try to introduce your girlfriend to your mother and see if they follow Berger’s pattern of reducing uncertainty. This will show you how accurate Berger’s axioms are.
The criterion of the scientific model is a practical utility, which is evident in the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. The axioms are very useful in order to provide a clear and helpful insight on how uncertainty can be reduced through repeated encounters and disclosure of information in new relationships. By following the guidelines that Berger proposed in his axioms, it is certain that the anxiety you feel when facing unfamiliar situations or a new relationship will dissolve.
The theory is formulated in order to understand how relationship develops and how to reduce our uncertainties towards the person we are talking to or to a stranger. Dating is a way acquiring information about the person we are eager to see or to know.
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model above shows the stages of the reducing uncertainty. As we see in the entry phase, communication is guided by norms and rules. Applying it the situation, I have found out that our norms are followed. She greeted me and I greeted her. Then, we introduce ourselves to each other. Our exchange of information is still demographic but as we begin to ask to the person of her interest we begin to exchange information through sharing our beliefs, values and our telling them of our attitude. This is the stage where we open up and show the person our emotions, feelings towards them or perhaps our anger. In this phase, we talk without following norms or rules in short we just talk. The exit phase loses the information exchange or we exchange little information and sometimes no information at all.
I therefore conclude that Berger made a very interesting theory because it can enlighten us of the things that we are doing and for us to be aware of what we are going to do when we engaged ourselves in a relationship. Talking of relationships, we can avoid uncertainties if we only try to find information about the person but it doesn’t mean that we have to be stalkers. We should be able to understand the person and at the same time, we could make the person feel better or feel comfortable. Reducing uncertainties are easy as long as we can follow Berger’s proposed axioms. And lastly Berger showed us how to enter in a relationship.
-
Works cited:
Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain Outcome Values in Predicted Relationships: Uncertainty Reduction Theory Then and Now. Human Communication Research, Vol. 13, No. 1. Fall 1986, 34-38.
Berger, C. R., Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some Exploration in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). The Influence of Cultural Similarity, Type of Relationship, and Self-Monitoring on Uncertainty Reduction Processes. Communication Monographs, 52, 203-217.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts (2nd ed). NY: McGraw Hill
Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London: Arnold.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Theory, 1, 99-112, Context and Challenges. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berger, C. R., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Uncertainty and communication. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
