Uncertainty


 * Etymology and Definition **

The concept of uncertainty has roots as early as the 14th century and has been derived from English, Germanic, Anglo-Norman, and Latin/Romance languages (Oxford English Diction ary, 2012, n.p). According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2012), the primary definition of uncertainty is “The quality of being uncertain in respect of duration, continuance, occurrence, etc.; liability to chance or accident. Also, the quality of being indeterminate as to magnitude or value; the amount of variation in a numerical result that is consistent with observation,” (n.p). The Oxford English Dictionary also dictates uncertainty as “The state of not being definitely known or perfectly clear; doubtfulness or vagueness,” (n.p).

Within academic work, the roots of uncertainty as a concept of interest stem from both communication and psychology backgrounds in the mid 20th century. Communication scholars Shannon and Weaver (1949) explored ways that a mathematical model can explain the way we communicate information and develop predictability in interaction. In the field of psychology, Heider (1958) advanced attribution theory, which posits that individuals are motivated to be able to explain behavior. The most common definition of uncertainty within the field of communication comes from Berger and Calabrese (1975), who claim that uncertainty occurs when people are unsure about their environment, and that uncertainty represents people’s level confidence in their predictive power and their explanatory power.


 * Perspectives on Uncertainty **

The concept of uncertainty received great attention in communication research in the 1970s and 1980s, after Berger and Calabrese (1975) directed scholars’ attention to ways that ambiguity can impact communication (c. f. Berger, 1987). Along with its prominence in the study of human communication, there are multiple perspectives on how the cognitive construct of uncertainty plays a role in communication processes.

One perspective is that of //Uncertainty Reduction// (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Scholars operating under this paradigm assume that individuals find uncertainty to be an uncomfortable state and therefore, seek to reduce it. Uncertainty reduction theorists believe we are motivated to be able to predict and explain our surroundings, so we communicate in ways that help us accomplish that goal (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Originally, this perspective proved useful for explaining how people behave in the context of initial interactions with strangers. This perspective links uncertainty to specific communication outcomes such as verbal communication, nonverbal expressiveness, and perceived similarity (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). One criticism of this conceptualization of uncertainty is its deterministic nature. The assumption that uncertainty is always a bad thing was very quickly challenged (e.g. Sunnafrank, 1986). For example, Brashers et al. (2000) recognized that uncertainty does have positive functions within romantic relationships. The scholars claimed that uncertainty detracted from predictability, which often leads to boredom and dissolution of a relationship.

A complementary perspective on this concept is that of //Uncertainty Management// (e.g. Afifi & Weiner, 2004; Brashers, 2001). An uncertainty management perspective challenges the uncertainty reduction paradigm in two important ways. First, Brashers (2001) makes a distinction between information and uncertainty, claiming that it is possible to have a lot of information and still feel uncertain. Additionally, this perspective asserts that uncertainty will not always anxiety provoking (Brashers, 2001). Scholars who ascribe to this conceptualization feel that reduction of uncertainty is only //one// possible response to feeling doubts or ambiguity about a social situation. Brashers (2001) asserted that “uncertainty is multilayerd, interconnected, and temporal” (p. 481), and thus, the responses are going to be varied as well. Uncertainty management involves using communication behaviors to increase, decrease, or maintain uncertainty. The response is contingent on the appraisal of the uncertainty provoking event (Brashers, Neidig, & Goldsmith, 2004), as well as the uncertainty discrepancy (Afifi & Matsunaga, 2008). In sum, this perspective highlights a range of information seeking behaviors that can occur as a result of uncertainty.

A third perspective on uncertainty focuses on //Uncertainty in Relationships// (e.g. Solomon & Knobloch, 2004). While uncertainty reduction theorists initially focused on initial interactions, this theory was later extended to intercultural contexts (Gudykunst, 1985) and further established interpersonal relationships (Knobloch & Solomon, 2002). From this, multiple theories developed that explicitly highlight the role of this construct within relationships. Theories such as Relational Dialectics (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996), the Theory of Motivated Information Management (Afifi & Weiner, 2004), and the Relational Turbulence Model (Solomon & Knobloch, 2004) are used for examining how uncertainty can influence interaction when individuals are already involved in a close relationship with each other. For example, the relational turbulence model focuses on //relational uncertainty//, which is comprised of self, partner, and relationship sources (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Indeed, relational uncertainty scholars focus on how feelings of doubt and vagueness operate specifically in dyadic partnerships.


 * Uncertainty in Health Contexts **

Recently, uncertainty scholars have made great contributions to the study of health and illness by examining ways that this construct operates during challenging health situations. Uncertainty is a critical component in both acute and chronic illnesses (Brashers, Neidig, Haas, Dobbs, Cardillo, & Russell, 2000). Contextual studies focusing on particular health issues bridge the gap between studying uncertainty in a relationship context and the applied value of health communication. Scholars have highlighted uncertainty as a crucial component of the illness experience in depression (Knobloch & Delaney, in press; Knobloch & Knobloch-Fedders, 2010), breast cancer (Weber & Solomon, 2008), HIV/AIDS (Brashers, Neidig, & Goldsmith, 2004), and infertility (Steuber & Solomon, 2008), among others. In response increased technology use, Rains (2014) examined the use of health information seeking on the World Wide Web by cancer patients. Rains (2014) found that cancer patients, in order to achieve a manageable level of uncertainty, used the Internet as a means to as make themselves feel as if they can positively impact their own health, therefore putting them in control of their uncertainty levels. Golden & Pomerantz (2015) studied why some African American women with a lower income prefer avoid seeking out sexual health care and have uncertainty, rather than taking control of their sexual health. This research provides insight as to how to improve health promotion initiatives and reduce sexual health disparities that are often increased due to uncertainty. This line of research has also led to a related construct known as illness uncertainty (Brashers, Neidig, & Goldsmith, 2004; Mishel, 1981). Based on Mishel’s (1981) illness uncertainty scale, this construct is comprised of ambiguity or doubts about symptomatology, diagnosis, treatment, relationships with caregivers, and planning for the future.


 * Outcomes of Uncertainty **

Knobloch (2010) highlights four areas that can be impacted by feelings of uncertainty. First, the cognitive feeling of uncertainty can impact other cognitions, such as the way we perceive our partners, our relationships, and even our social networks (e.g. Knobloch & Donovan-Kicken, 2006). Uncertainty has also been linked to negative emotions such as anger, sadness, and fear (Knobloch, Miller, & Carpenter, 2007). Additionally, message production outcomes have been linked to uncertainty. Individuals may find it challenging to develop effective messages (Knobloch, 2006), or have changes in their information seeking behaviors and nonverbal expressiveness (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Finally, uncertainty can impact message processing. Individuals may hesitate to draw conclusions or evaluate conversations negatively (e.g. Knobloch, Miller, Bond, & Mannone, 2007) and may see changes in perceived similarity and liking of their partner (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).

In sum, uncertainty is a cognitive construct that has received close attention in the field of communication. With diverse perspectives on the role of this concept in interaction and relationships, there are surely continued avenues for research on how feelings of ambiguity affect behavior.

Amy L. Delaney (August, 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Uncertainty" limit="10"


 * References **

Afifi, W. A. & Matsunaga, M. (2008). Uncertainty management theories: Three approaches to a multifarious process. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), //Engaging theories in interpersonal communication// (pp. 117-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. //Communication Theory, 14,// 167-190.

Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). //Relating: Dialogues and dialectics.// New York: Guilford.

Berger. C. R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), //Interpersonal Processes// (pp. 39-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. //Human Communication Research, 1,// 99-112.

Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. //Journal of Communication, 51,// 477-497.

Brashers, D. E., Neidig, J. L., & Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Social support and the management of uncertainty for people living with HIV or AIDS. //Health Communication, 16,// 305-331.

Brashers, D. E., Neidig, J. L., Haas, S. M., Dobbs, L. K., Cardillo, L. W., & Russell, J. A. (2000). Communication in the management of uncertainty: The case of persons living with HIV or AIDS. Communications Monographs, 67(1), 63-84.

Golden, A. G., & Pomerantz, A. (2015). Interpretative repertoires that shape low-income African American women’s reproductive health care seeking: “Don’t Want to Know” and “Taking Charge of Your Health”. //Health Communication, 30//(8), 746-757.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). The influence of cultural similarity, type of relationship, and self-monitoring on uncertainty reduction processes. //Communication Monographs, 52,// 203-217.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Knobloch, L. K. (2006). Relational uncertainty and message production within courtship: Features of date request messages. //Human Communication Research, 32,// 244-273.

Knobloch, L. K. (2010). Relational uncertainty and interpersonal communication. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), //New directions in interpersonal communication research// (pp. 69-93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knobloch, L. K., & Delaney, A. L. (in press). Themes of relational uncertainty and interference from partners in depression. //Health Communication,// 1-16.

Knobloch, L. K., & Donovan-Kicken, E. (2006). Perceived involvement of network members in courtships: A test of the relational turbulence model. //Personal Relationships, 13,// 281-302.

Knobloch, L. K., & Knobloch-Fedders, L. M. (2010). The role of relational uncertainty in depressive symptoms and relational quality: An actor-partner interdependence model. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,// 137-159.

Knobloch, L. K., & Miller, L. E., Bond, B. J., & Mannone, S. E. (2007). Relational uncertainty and message processing in marriage. //Communication Monographs, 74,// 154-180.

Knobloch, L. K., Miller, L. E., & Carpenter, K. E. (2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. //Personal Relationships, 14,// 91-112.

Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. //Communication Studies, 50,// 261-278.

Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. //Human Communication Research, 28,// 243-357.

Mishel, M. H. (1981). The measurement of uncertainty in illness. //Nursing Research, 5,// 258-263.

Rains, S. A. (2014). Health Information Seeking and the World Wide Web: An Uncertainty Management Perspective. //Journal of Health Communication, 19//(11), 1296-1307.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign: University of Illinois.

Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,// 795-816.

Steuber, K. R., & Solomon, D. H. (2008). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and infertility: A qualitative study of discourse within online forums. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25,// 831-835.

Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformation of uncertainty reduction theory. //Human Communication Research, 13,// 3-33.

Uncertainty. (2012). In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com.

Weber, K. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2008). Locating relationship and communication issues among stressors associated with breast cancer. //Health Communication, 23,// 548-559.