1. Think back on your initial encounters with a roommate, romantic partner, or friend. Now, select two axioms to explain your encounter – What strategies were employed to reduce uncertainty? Were there elements about the individual or the context of your meeting that motivated your quest to reduce uncertainty?
My boyfriend, Hunter, and I met online, in a group chat for incoming freshmen at Fredonia. At first, all of our interactions were made through that group chat, before he privately messaged me one day. We instantly hit it off, and we texted each other every day. He decided to make the drive to see me (we lived about an hour and a half away from each other before we both went to Fredonia). Soon after that, we started dating.
There are two axioms of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory that explain how we met and how we were able to reduce uncertainty. URT is a theory that states “when strangers meet, their primary concern is reducing uncertainty, or increasing predictability about the behavior of both themselves and others in the interaction” (Griffin, p. 105). An axiom is “a self-evident truth that requires no additional proof” (Griffin, p. 107). In URT, there are eight axioms. Axiom 1, verbal communication, and axiom 5, reciprocity, were strategies used in the beginning of my relationship to reduce uncertainty.
Axiom 1, verbal communication, states that “as the amount of verbal communication between them increases, the level of uncertainty for each person will decrease. As uncertainty is further reduced, the amount of verbal communication will increase” (Griffin, p. 107). As I mentioned earlier, Hunter and I texted each other every day after he first privately messaged me. Us talking so often helped reduce uncertainty, as we were becoming more and more comfortable with each other through texting, so much so that it wasn’t even awkward or uncomfortable when we did meet in person.
Axiom 5, reciprocity, states that “high levels of uncertainty produce high rates of reciprocity. Low levels of uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity” (Griffin, p. 108). As we had talked every day, and for long periods of time, we did not have low levels of uncertainty. Therefore, there were high rates of reciprocity between us, especially since we had ongoing conversations for hours on ends. We learned a lot about each other in those first few weeks of conversation, which helped eliminate uncertainty.
At first, my goal was to just find people to be friends with when I got to Fredonia. I think that was a factor that motivated me, and Hunter as well, to reduce uncertainty. And, since we clicked almost instantly, I wanted to at least be friends with him, which further motivated me to start lowering any levels of uncertainty.
2. Berger suggests that people interact less if they do not anticipate future interactions. Why is it, then, that complete strangers often interact intensely when seated next to each other on a train, plane, or bus? Explain your answer in terms of uncertainty reduction theory (e.g., axioms). Use a real-life example to support your answer.
Over Thanksgiving break, I was flying out to visit my mom and grandma in Arizona. Usually, I prefer to listen to music and read to pass the time, and to avoid conversations with people. But, during this trip, an older woman struck up a conversation with me while we were sitting next to each other waiting for boarding to start. She asked where I was flying to, who I was visiting, and other basic questions you ask someone in an airport. We had a good conversation, and it lasted for about fifteen minutes until her boarding group was called up to board the plane. Though that would be the only time we talked to each other, each of us did a fair amount of self-disclosure.
I believe that complete strangers interact intensely when seated next to each other during traveling situations to make it less awkward and make oneself comfortable and less anxious. Using the uncertainty reduction theory, which is “when strangers meet, their primary concern is reducing uncertainty, or increasing predictability about the behavior of both themselves and others in the interaction” (Griffin, p. 105). Sitting next to a stranger on a train, plane, or bus can be an uncomfortable experience, especially when they are on longer trips.
Axiom 3, information seeking, explains why people may strike conversations with complete strangers that they may never see again. According to this axiom, “high levels of uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior” (Griffin, p. 107). In a situation where there is uncertainty, such as sitting next to a stranger on a form of public transportation, a person may feel compelled to seek out information about the individual to ease their uncertainty.
Axiom 6, similarity, also explains the situation. Similarity states that “similarities between persons reduce uncertainty,” meaning that if these strangers have anything in common, such as them both traveling to the same place, it may reduce some uncertainty and make the trip more comfortable.
4. Explore the connection between URT and SIP by explaining the similarities and differences between FTF communication and CMC. Your answer should use a real-life example and include at least one axiom from URT.
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) and Social Information Processing Theory (SIP) are connected — they each explain how and why people find out more information about another. SIP was first developed to explain “how online communication shapes the development of interpersonal and group relationships,” and the conclusion was that “as goes face-to-face communication, so goes online communication” (Griffin, p. 117).
Face-to-face communication (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) are very, very similar, and very, very different. FTF communication has the luxury of non-verbal, physical cues, immediate responses, and the ability to tell the tone of the speaker. CMC communication, however, is still very similar to that of FTF. The message can get across better, because you have the luxury to develop and think of exactly what you want to say.
I have had both in-person and online friendships, and all of them have had the same feeling. One of my best friends is an online friend. I’ve known her for almost ten years, and our friendship is one of the strongest I have, despite the fact that we have never met in person. I met my boyfriend online, and we occasionally have to go long-distance when I go back home during summer and winter breaks, and our relationship did not get affected by that.
In this age, relationships are often CMC because social media and the internet dictate so much of our lives. However, verbal communication, the first axiom from URT, is present in both FTF and CMC. There is still talking (just not spoken out loud, but rather a typed conversation), there is just less of that nonverbal warmth, the second axiom.
URT explains different ways people seek to lessen the uncertainty in new relationships, and SIP explains the development of online relationships. In-person and online relationships develop in pretty much the same way, there are just some things that are missing from each.
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). Chapter 7: Expectancy Violations Theory and Chapter 8: Social Penetration Theory. In A first look at communication theory (10th ed., pp. 79–95). essay, McGraw-Hill Education.
Comments
Post a Comment