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.