Communication Theory (Politeness + Uncertainty Reduction Theory)

Politeness + Uncertainty

Reduction/Management Theory

Tara Wilkinson-McCleanMedia + Communications Lecturer

Politeness Theory

“In everyday life we design messages that protect face and achieve other goals as well.

”

Politeness Theory - Key Words

• Face Needs

• Positive Politeness

• Negative Politeness

• Face-threatening Acts

FACE NEEDS

POSITIVE FACE POSITIVE POLITENESS

NEGATIVE FACENEGATIVE POLITENESS

I’m sorry to bother you,

but could you tell me...?

FACE THREATENING ACTS (FTAs)

Forms of FTAs

• Deliver FTA badly or directly, without polite action

• Deliver FTA along with some form of positive politeness

• Deliver FTA along with some form of negative politeness

• Deliver FTA indirectly, off the record

• Not deliver FTA at all

BAD FTA

I would like you to

reconsider my grade

POSITIVE POLITENESS

I would appreciate it if you could look at my grade

again. Other students said you are really nice about

doing that

NEGATIVE POLITENESS

I’m really sorry. I know you’re busy, but could I have a moment of your

time? I would really appreciate it if you could look at my grade again

“Off-the-Record” FTA

I wonder how I will get to town this evening to pick up my dry

cleaning

Well, you can’t use my car

Oh, I wasn’t asking for it

W x = D(S,H) + P (H,S) = Rx

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Charles Berger

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Central to UCR theory is the assumption that when strangers meet, their primary concern is one of uncertainty reduction or increasing predictability about the behaviour of both themselves and others in

the interaction.

Reducing Uncertainty

• Anticipation of Future Interaction: We know we will see them again

• Incentive Value: They have something we want

• Deviance: They act in a weird way

Uncertainty Reduction: To Predict and Explain

• Increased knowledge of what kind of person another is, which provides an improved forecast of how a future interaction will turn

out

Uncertainty

Behavioural

Cognitive

An Axiomatic Theory: Certainty about Uncertainty

• Axiom 1 - Verbal Communication

• Axiom 2 - Nonverbal Warmth

• Axiom 3 - Information Seeking

• Axiom 4 - Self Disclosure

• Axiom 5 - Reciprocity

• Axiom 6 - Similarity

• Axiom 7 - Liking

• Axiom 8 - Shared Networks

Axiom 1 - Verbal Communication

As the amount of verbal communication between strangers increases, the level of uncertainty decreases, and as a result, verbal communication increases.

Axiom 2 - Nonverbal Warmth

As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness increases, uncertainty levels will decrease.  Decreases in uncertainty level will cause increases in nonverbal affiliative expressiveness.

Axiom 3 - Information Seeking

Information seeking: High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior.  As uncertainty levels decline, information-seeking behavior decreases.

Axiom 4 - Self Disclosure

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.

Axiom 5 - Reciprocity

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

Axiom 6 - Similarity

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

Axiom 7 - Liking

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

Axiom 8 - Shared Networks

Shared communication networks reduce uncertainty, while a lack of shared networks increases uncertainty. 

Theorems

A Proposition that logically and necessarily follows from two axioms

If A = Band B =

Cthen A =

C

Theorem Example

• If similarity reduces uncertainty (axiom 6)

• and reduced uncertainty increases liking (axiom 7)

• then similarity and liking are positively related

Theory of Interpersonal Development

Hierarchal Plan Goal-Director Communication

Coping With Uncertain Responses

• Seeking Information

• Choosing Plan Complexity

• Hedging

• Hierarchy Hypothesis

Seeking Information

Active Strategy

Interactive

Strategy

Passive Strategy

Impression formation by observing a person

interacting with others

Impression formation by asking a third party about a

person

Impression formation through face-to-face

discussion with a person

Choosing Plan Complexity

Measuring

Complexity of

Message Plan

Level of Details

Number of

Contingency Plans

Hedging

Hedging

Strategic Ambiguit

yHumor

Hierarchy of Hypothesis

“When it’s obvious that the person we’re talking to has failed to grasp what we are saying, our inclination is to repeat the

same message - but this time louder”

- Charles Berger

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM)

Theory William Gudykunst

Differences

• UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY

• Uncertainty as the key communication variable

• Goal - Closeness or relational satisfaction.

• Centers around 7 or 8 axioms

• UNCERTAINTY/ANXIETY MANAGEMENT THEORY

• Elevated anxiety to an equal status

• Goal - Effective communication

• Incorporated 34 axioms

Anxiety

AnxietyCognitive

Uncertainty

Affective

Effective Communication

The extent to which a person interpreting a message does so in a way that’s relatively similar to what was intended; minimizing misunderstanding.

Multiple Causes of Anxiety/Uncertainty

Lower and Upper Thresholds for Fear and Doubt

Adrenalin runs through

our veins and prods us

to communicate effectively

Paralyzed with fear

Not feel bored or over

confident about our

predictions of stranger’s behaviour

We lose curiosity and go on auto pilot. Likely

to misinterpret

Lose confidence to

predict behaviour.

Believe communicatio

n not worthwhile

Mindfulness

The process of thinking in new

categories, being open to new

information and recognizing multiple

perspectives

Critique - Kathy Kellermann

Theorem 17 is flawed

A.The tight logical structure of the theory doesn't allow us to reject one theorem without questioning the axioms behind it.

B.In the case of theorem 17, axioms 3 and 7 must also be suspect.

Kellermann and Rodney Renolds

A. Challenge the motivational assumption of axiom 3.B.They also have undermined the claim that motivation to search for

information is increased by anticipation of future interaction, incentive value, and deviance.

Michael Sunnafrank

A. Challenges Berger’s claim that uncertainty reduction is the key to understanding early encounters.

B. He believes that predicted outcome value more accurately explains communication in early encounters.

C. Berger insists that you can't predict outcome values until you reduce uncertainty.