MOTIVATION TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTY

A Reconceptualization of
Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Michael W. Kramer
University of Missouri–Columbia

The numerous theories in the organizational communication

lit- erature provide alternative understandings and supplement
each other in building the body of knowledge (Putnam, 1983).
However, none provides me with an integrated theoretical
perspective needed for developing organizational communication
as a unified field that can examine microanalytical and
macroanalytical issues. Although a completely integrative theory
is unlikely, in this article I propose a reconceptualization of
uncertainty reduction theory (URT) (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) to
provide a theoretical framework for examining organizational
communication at various levels of analysis and thereby
1
providing some integration of the field. I briefly present some
major tenets and criticisms of URT and then propose a moti-
vation to reduce uncertainty (MRU) model. Finally, I show how
MRU could be used to examine organizational communication
behaviors at different levels of analysis and to address or
reexamine major concerns in the field.

BASIC TENETS OF URT

Berger and Calabrese (1975) proposed uncertainty reduction

theory as a theory for interpersonal communication. Uncertainty
exists to the degree that situations are unpredictable or cannot be
adequately understood (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Axioms 3
and 1 provide the essential assumptions of URT with the
remaining

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999 305-316

© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

305

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at Monash University on June 17, 2015

306 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999

axioms and theorems largely dependent on them (Berger & Cal-

abrese, 1975). Axiom 3 states that high levels of uncertainty will
result in information seeking, and Axiom 1 states that as
communi- cation increases, the level of uncertainty decreases.
Overall, URT suggests that when individuals, groups, or
organizations experi- ence uncertainty, they are motivated or
driven to seek information to reduce uncertainty (Deci, 1975).
URT has primarily been used to examine initial interactions (e.g.,
Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984), although significant research in
organizational communication has built on this theoretical
framework (e.g., Kramer, 1993; Miller & Jablin, 1991).
Some scholars have suggested problems with URT. For exam-
ple, Sunnafrank (1990) provides evidence that predicted outcome
value (the possible future value of interactions) predicts
communi- cation better than uncertainty levels. Kellerman and
Reynolds (1990) conclude that tolerance of uncertainty more
accurately pre- dicts communication than uncertainty. In
addition, information can actually increase uncertainty rather
than reduce it when the infor- mation is unexpected (e.g., Planalp
& Honeycutt, 1985) and limited uncertainty can be positive in
relationships (Baxter & Montgom- ery, 1996). Such findings
suggest that URT as originally presented needs to be
reconsidered. What follows is a proposed reconceptu- alization
of URT to address some of these concerns.

A MODEL OF MRU

MRU owes some intellectual heritage to the Elaboration

Likeli- hood Model (ELM) of Petty and Cacioppo (1981). ELM
suggests that individuals are persuaded by one of two different
methods or paths depending on their motivation to elaborate on
the persuasive messages. Similarly, MRU (see Figure 1) proposes
that different levels of motivation to reduce uncertainty can lead
to certain com- munication behaviors depending on competing
goals.
 Kramer / UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY 307

Figure 1: Model of Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty

FACTORS INFLUENCING MRU

MRU suggests at least four different reasons for low

motivation to seek information. First, people do not experience
uncertainty in every event or encounter. Predictable or easily
understood situa- tions will not result in significant levels of
uncertainty. So, for example, whereas a newcomer may find that
the chaos of a meeting produces high uncertainty, veterans may
experience little uncer- tainty because such meetings are routine.
As a result, veterans’ motivation to seek information is low,
whereas the newcomer’s may be quite high.
Next, individuals have different levels of tolerance for uncer-
tainty (Kellerman & Reynolds, 1990). Also, a dialectic tension
exists between a desire for certainty and uncertainty (Baxter &
Mongomery, 1996). Thus, uncertainty may be intolerable for
some individuals but be of no concern or positive for others. For
example, some employees may not experience uncertainty when
assigned a
308 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999

new supervisor because they have developed a high tolerance for

uncertainty due to frequent management changes. However, a
group with low tolerance for uncertainty may experience high
lev- els of uncertainty when a supervisor simply changes his or
her rou- tine one day.
Because communication always has social or effort costs
(Miller & Jablin, 1991), minimizing those costs with limited
effort may be preferable to information seeking. One way an
individual may minimize costs is to create a tolerance of
uncertainty. When a situa- tion creates uncertainty, people may
dismiss it as irrelevant and thereby create a tolerance for the
uncertainty. Similar to dissonance reduction (Festinger, 1957),
uncertainty is reduced through cogni- tive processes rather than
communication behaviors. For example, a clerk may choose to
tolerate uncertainty created by an eccentric customer due to the
short-term relationship involved or the lack of “predicted
outcome value” (Sunnafrank, 1990).
Individuals may also create certainty with minimal
information seeking and without overt communication.
Classification systems, such as stereotyping, create certainty out
of uncertain situations. Although these classifications may be
inaccurate or damaging, such as an affirmative action label
stigmatizing an individual (Heil- man, Block, & Lucas, 1992),
they create the impression of cer- tainty. Individuals may create
certainty about a new coworker on the basis of a symbol of
organizational affiliation (e.g., National Organization for Women
[NOW], National Rifle Association [NRA]). Similarly, a
characteristic of groupthink (Janis, 1972) is a tendency for the
group to view opposition as enemies while per- ceiving
themselves as morally right. Such a classification system
provides a convenient method for reducing the group’s environ-
ment uncertainty.
Another way to create certainty is by making causal
attributions concerning the person’s trait or situation as
suggested by attribution theory (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). For
example, blaming an employ- ee’s failure on his or her lack of
motivation and ability rather than on an intolerable work
situation may reduce uncertainty for a supervisor as he or she
considers dismissing the employee. Indicat- ing that a good year
was the result of planning and a bad year was
 Kramer / UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY 309

the result of environmental problems, such as government

interfer- ence (e.g., Clapham & Schwenk, 1991), reduces
uncertainty for the organization and its constituents. Regardless
of their accuracy, using classification systems or creating causal
attributions can reduce uncertainty and motivation to seek
information.

FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS

Berger and Calabrese (1975) present uncertainty reduction as

an autonomous determinant of information seeking (Anderson,
1996). However, communicators have multiple, often conflicting
goals or motives that they must balance rather than maximizing
any particular one (Eisenberg, 1984). For example, individuals
have goals to communicate cooperatively, to maintain coherence,
and to protect their own and their partner’s face (O’Keefe &
Shepherd, 1987). These competing motives moderate the
information seeking that would normally result from specific
levels of motivation to reduce uncertainty.
Avoiding costs while maximizing benefits is one motive that
competes with uncertainty reduction. Limited time, skill, or
energy may prevent information seeking. Impression
management con- cerns such as maintaining a positive image
with other employees may prevent information seeking because
a request may suggest incompetence or insecurity (Morrison &
Bies, 1991). Along these lines, Sias, Kramer, and Jenkins (1997)
found that temporary employees, who did not need to maintain
relationships with coworkers, perceived fewer social costs in
seeking information than did regular new hires.
At the same time, the value of social interaction may motivate
communication that would not be expected from low motivation
to reduce uncertainty. A certain amount of courtesy and
pleasantry is expected in human interaction in organizations
(Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Truijillo, 1983). Thus, even when
motivation to reduce uncertainty is low, communication
behaviors may appear to be active information-seeking
behaviors. For example, a clerk may ask customers various
uncertainty-reducing questions to seem polite and competent,
thus appearing to seek information to reduce
310 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999

uncertainty. No doubt, other competing motives besides cost or

appearing socially adept need to be examined. The competing
motives influence the choice of information-seeking behaviors
that result from levels of motivation to reduce uncertainty.

INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIORS

Experimental studies on URT have tended to focus on whether

individuals seek information from sources of uncertainty, the
only available sources in the artificial settings (e.g., Kellerman &
Rey- nolds, 1990; Sunnafrank, 1990). In natural settings, there
are a vari- ety of sources for information to reduce uncertainty
(Kramer, 1993). Thus, an employee can reduce uncertainty about
a supervi- sor by seeking information from peers or even from a
friend or spouse outside the organization. There are obtrusive
(solicit/overt request) and unobtrusive (observe/indirect) ways of
gaining infor- mation that range from passive (unsolicited) to
active (overt/indi- rect) (Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995;
Miller & Jablin, 1991), and individuals may use different
methods to manage the same communication goals (O’Keefe,
1991).
MRU suggests that when competing motives are not a
concern, high motivation to reduce uncertainty will result in
direct inquiry, as suggested by URT, and that low motivation
without competing goals would rely on expending minimal
resources by monitoring or waiting for unsolicited information.
With competing motives under high motivation to seek
information, less-obtrusive methods of seeking information
would result. For example, Casey, Miller, and Johnson (1997)
found that the perceived social cost of seeking information after
a reduction in force caused individuals to use third-party or
indirect means to gather information rather than going to the
primary source (the supervisor). The competing goals of
appearing to communicate cooperatively (O’Keefe & Shepherd,
1987) under low motivation could lead an individual to use
direct inquiry simply to appear polite or competent.
 Kramer / UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY 311

OUTCOMES OF COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS

It is important to recognize that the range of behaviors

predicted by MRU can ultimately lead to similar results.
Unobtrusive or pas- sive approaches of receiving information
have been shown to be as effective in reducing uncertainty for
newcomers (Morrison, 1993) and transferees (Kramer et al.,
1995) as active approaches. In addi- tion, new information may
actually increase rather than decrease uncertainty when it is
unusual or unexpected.

APPLICATIONS OF MRU TO DIFFERENT

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN ORGANIZATIONS

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Research cited above demonstrates that MRU could be used to

examine how employees manage uncertainty during the
assimila- tion process. MRU also provides theoretical
explanations for why an employee might approach the
uncertainty of an unfamiliar cus- tomer for whom future
interactions are unlikely by relying on stereotypes and
monitoring, but seek information indirectly as an impression
management technique rather than using direct inquiry after a
supervisor announces promotions. Although only direct requests
are explained in URT, these multiple behaviors are all explained
with MRU.

GROUP LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

MRU provides possible theoretical explanations for examining

the rational and alternative approaches to understanding group
decision making. When groups are highly motivated to reduce
the uncertainty surrounding a decision and there are no
competing motives such as time or cost limitations, highly
rational behaviors lead to information seeking to reduce
uncertainty to optimize deci- sions (e.g., Hirokawa & Rost,
1992). When groups have limited time or resources to analyze
problems, competing motives cause groups to use shortcuts
(Starbuck, 1985) or reach satisficing
312 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999

decisions (Connolly, 1980) that create tolerable levels of uncer-

tainty. Garbage-can decisions (March & Olsen, 1976) occur
when there is low motivation or low uncertainty, but monitoring
and unsolicited interactions result in decisions anyway. MRU
provides new insight into each of these decision-making
processes.
MRU provides insight into intergroup communication.
Ancona and Caldwell (1992) describe four roles for managing
intergroup communication: ambassador (protect, persuade, and
lobby for resources), task coordinator (coordinate and obtain
feedback), scout (scan for ideas and competition), and guard
(avoid releasing information). Each appears to manage specific
types of group uncertainty that could be analyzed through MRU.
Groups highly motivated to reduce uncertainty would be
expected to emphasize task coordinator and scout roles. Groups
with limited motivation or resources might emphasize guards.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

MRU could be used at the organizational level to examine

com- munication related to organizational strategy, for example.
Miles, Snow, Meyer, and Coleman (1978) identify four major
strategies organizations use to manage their environments:
defenders, pros- pectors, analyzers, and reactors. Each appears to
be a different approach to managing uncertainty while
considering competing motives. MRU would suggest prospectors
have a low tolerance for uncertainty and seem highly motivated
to reduce uncertainty in the environment despite competing
motives such as costs. Defenders create certainty by developing
a stable set of products and custom- ers and are unmotivated to
communicate about other existing uncertainties. MRU might
provide additional insight into other issues such as
communication and structure or networks.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Research related to MRU could help understand the causes of

uncertainty and how it compares to ambiguity or equivocality.
 Kramer / UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY 313

Isabella (1990) provides a useful list of major events that trigger

uncertainty in organizations, but not those that trigger the uncer-
tainties individuals face in their routine work.
Examining the causes of certainty may be equally important to
explore with MRU because certainty leads to low motivation to
communicate. Research may provide insight into how power
natu- ralizes the present or reifies the current social system as
objective and immutable (Mumby, 1987). It could explore how
culture cre- ates certainty by creating meaning for members
(Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Truijillo, 1983) through official
documents and cultural stories (e.g., Brown & McMillan, 1991).
It could examine how net- work participation provides
unsolicited information and multiplex linkages for reducing
uncertainty (Albrecht & Hall, 1991).
Because uncertainty typically has been examined at the
individ- ual level, much more research is needed to understand
how groups and organizations experience uncertainty, develop
group tolerance for uncertainty, or use communication to create
organizational cer- tainty in turbulent situations. For example,
we can explore how individuals communicate about their
individual levels of tolerance of uncertainty to develop group or
organization levels.
MRU suggests that there can be both positive and negative
out- comes related to uncertainty reduction. Classification
systems or stereotypes save time and effort but may also result in
inappropriate judgments and missed opportunities. Seeking
information through indirect means or observation may save the
social cost of direct in- quiry, but such indirect information
acquisition is more subject to incorrect interpretation (Sias et al.,
1997). Too much previous URT research has viewed information
seeking and uncertainty reduction as always positive, rather than
examining how it benefits and harms individuals and
organizations.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Although it may seem that the model and proposals that have
been suggested are based on a certain methodology, I would
emphasize that they are not. Quantitative measures of
uncertainty,
314 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999

motivation, and communication behaviors could be developed.

Because reducing uncertainty is a sense-making process (Weick,
1995), qualitative methods could answer some questions such as
what triggers uncertainty or what motives compete with uncer-
tainty reduction during interactions. Critical analysis of organiza-
tional texts could provide valuable insight into how power is
used to create certainty or uncertainty and how groups and
organizations negotiate levels of tolerance of uncertainty. So,
although a certain method may seem implicit in a model, as
proposed, MRU embraces multiple methods of research.
It would be unrealistic to expect that MRU could completely
unify the field of organizational communication. In fact, such
unity would probably be undesirable because it would limit the
creative thinking necessary to explore, examine, and understand
the organ- izational experience. However, I hope I have
demonstrated that MRU could be used to analyze across
individual, group, and organ- izational levels and could lead to
research that increases our under- standing of common issues
while leading to new areas of inquiry.

NOTE

1. I admit that three biases pervade my thinking. First, I focus more on mechanistic
and psychological approaches to the study of communication (Fisher, 1978) that make up
the bulk of the theoretical and conceptual scholarship in organizational communication
(Krone, Jablin, & Putnam, 1987), rather than more interpretive or critical approaches.
Second, I gen- erally accept that “meanings are constituted by individuals, not inherent in
discourse” (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 229). So, even though meaning is created through
interaction, ulti- mately each individual determines the socially constructed reality and
meaning of communi- cation and then communicates on the basis of those personal
meanings. Third, I consider communication primarily a rational process but recognize
that there are competing concep- tualizations of rational message design (O’Keefe, 1991)
and that there is no objective crite- rion for judging rationality. Despite these biases, I
believe that some integration of many per- spectives is possible with the proposed theory.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, B. (1991). Relational and content differences between elites and
out- siders in innovation networks. Human Communication Research, 17, 535-561.
 Kramer / UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY 315

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
per- formance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-
665.
Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory: Epistemological foundations. New York:
Guilford.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New
York: Guilford.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communica- tion Research, 1, 99-112.
Brown, M. H., & McMillan, J. J. (1991). Culture as text: The development of
organizational narrative. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 49-60.
Casey, M. K., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. R. (1997). Survivors’ information seeking
follow- ing a reduction in workforce. Communication Research, 24, 755-781.
Clapham, S. E., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Self-serving attributions, managerial
cognition, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 219-229.
Connolly, T. (1980). Uncertainty, action and competence: Some alternative to
omniscience in complex problem-solving. In S. Fiddle (Ed.), Uncertainty: Behavioral
and social dimensions (pp. 69-91). New York: Praeger.
Deci, T. E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Commu- nication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Attribution theory. In Social cognition (pp. 72-99).
Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gudykunst, W., & Nishida, T. (1984). Individual and cultural influences on uncertainty
reduction. Communication Monographs, 84, 23-36.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent?
Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536-
544.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Rost, K. M. (1992). Effective group decision making in
organizations: Field test of the vigilant interaction theory. Management
Communication Quarterly, 5, 267-288.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers
construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7-41.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kellerman, K., & Reynolds, R. (1990). When ignorance is bliss: The role of motivation to
reduce uncertainty in uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research,
17, 5-75.
Kramer, M. W. (1993). Communication and uncertainty reduction during job transfers:
Leaving and joining processes. Communication Monographs, 60, 178-198.
Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R., & Turban, D. B. (1995). Information-giving and
information-receiving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59,
151-170.
Krone, K. J., Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1987). Communication theory and organiza-
tional communication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H.
Rob- erts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 18-
40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
316 MCQ / Vol. 13, No. 2, November 1999

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Organizational choice under ambiguity. In J. G. March &
J. P. Olse (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations (pp. 10-68). Bergen, Norway:
Universitetsforlaget.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational
strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3, 546-562.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organization entry:
Influ- ences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16,
92-120.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,
sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589.
Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking
process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review,
16, 522-541.
Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations.
Communication Monographs, 54, 113-127.
O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and the management of multiple goals. In
K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face to face communication: Issues linking goals and
dis- course (pp. 131-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Keefe, B. J., & Shepherd, G. J. (1987). The pursuit of multiple objectives in face to
face persuasive interactions: Effects of construct differentiation on message
organization. Communication Monographs, 54, 396-419.
Pacanowsky, M.E., & O’Donnell-Truijillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as
cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126-147.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relation-
ships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
Putnam, L. L. (1983). Paradigms for organizational communication research: An
overview and synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 192-206.
Sias, P. M., Kramer, M. W., & Jenkins, E. (1997). A comparison of the communication
behaviors of temporary employees and new hires. Communication Research, 24, 731-
754.
Starbuck, W. H. (1985). Acting first and thinking later: Theory versus reality in strategic
change. In J. Penning & Associates (Eds.), Organizational strategy and change (pp.
336-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sunnafrank, M. (1990). Predicted outcome value and uncertainty reduction theories: A
test of competing perspectives. Human Communication Research, 17, 76-103.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Michael W. Kramer (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 1991) is an associate

pro- fessor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri–
Colum- bia. Among his research interests are the assimilation process and
emotions in the workplace. A more complete explication of motivation to reduce
uncertainty (MRU) is available from the author.