1

Theory of Motivated Information

Management
Walid A. Afifi
University of Iowa, USA

The theory of motivated information management (TMIM; Afifi & Weiner, 2004; see
Figure  1) is a framework that explains the processes that people go through when
deciding whether to seek information from someone else about an important issue.
The theory also examines the decisions that people make in trying to decide what and
how much information to give to those seeking it. Because it seeks to explain individ-
uals’ responses to uncertainty, it is considered to be one of several theories that address
the process of uncertainty management. It was first published at the end of a decade‐
long period that witnessed several efforts to increase scholarly understanding of the
uncertainty management and information‐seeking process.

What makes TMIM unique

There are four aspects that separated TMIM from other efforts to extend the study of
uncertainty and its management that arose during that period. First, it identified two
scope conditions for the theory: the logic of the theory only applies (a) to uncertainty
and information management that is performed within interpersonal encounters and,
then, only when (b) the issue is perceived as important to the achievement of personal,
relational, or instrumental goals. Second, it brought focused attention to efficacy judg-
ments as central moderators between an individual’s desire to manage their uncer-
tainties and their decision to seek information. Third, it offered an explicitly dyadic
framework for understanding the interplay between information‐seeker and provider
in the information‐management exchange. Finally, it offered a more precise predictive
structure than many other frameworks during that period. The end result was that Afifi
and Weiner (2004) proposed a three‐phase process that potential information‐seekers
went through: interpretation, evaluation, and decision phases. The first two phases
combined to predict precise information‐management decisions in the third phase.

Interpretation phase

The experience of uncertainty is the engine is that drives the process described in
TMIM. Afifi and Weiner (2004) adopted Brashers’s (2001) definition of uncertainty as
existing “when details of the situation are ambiguous, complex, unpredictable, or

The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, First Edition.

Edited by Charles R. Berger and Michael E. Roloff.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic0168
2

Information-seeker

Interpretation phase Evaluation phase Decision phase

Outcome
expectancies

Information
Uncertainty management
Emotion
discrepancy strategy

Efficacy

Information provider

Outcome
expectancies

Information
management
strategy

Efficacy

Figure 1  Graphical model of TMIM’s propositional structure.

Source: Afifi and Weiner (2006) Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management.
Communication Theory © International Communication Association. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐
2885.2004.tb00310.x

­ robabilistic; when information is unavailable or inconsistent; and when people feel

p
insecure in their own state of knowledge or the state of knowledge in general” (p. 478).
Importantly, Afifi’s thinking about the theory began as an effort to extend work by
Brashers (2001) and Babrow (2001), both of whom challenged the assumptions
underlying Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).
­
Specifically, those scholars, among others, argued against Berger’s assumption that
uncertainty was almost universally anxiety producing. Instead, they proposed that
uncertainty can be experienced as hope, as anticipation, or appraised in some other
positive ways. Indeed, some individuals prefer uncertainty over certainty in some cases.
In an effort to best capture the motivating nature of uncertainty, Afifi and Weiner
(2004) turned to theories of persuasion and heuristic processing (e.g., Chaiken, Giner‐
Sorolla, & Chen, 1996). The result was the claim that the engine of the uncertainty
management process was not levels of uncertainty, per se, but the difference between an
individual’s current and desired states of uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty discrepancy).
In other words, individuals only begin the process proposed by TMIM if their level of
current uncertainty about an important issue is greater or less than their level of desired
uncertainty on that issue. Consistent with both cybernetic models and activation theory,
Afifi and Weiner (2004) argued that this discrepancy between actual and desired states
 3

produced anxiety. That, in turn, motivated individuals toward anxiety‐reduction, and

led them to the evaluation phase of the process. However, the ­cybernetic model explana-
tion for discrepancy’s outcome limited the theory’s ability to account for emotional out-
comes of uncertainty discrepancy other than anxiety. Afifi and Morse (2009) addressed
this limitation by replacing a cybernetic model account for ­uncertainty’s emotional
impact with an appraisal theory approach. Although the authors argue that anxiety is
likely to be the most typical appraisal of uncertainty d ­ iscrepancy, the change made
TMIM able to account for other emotional outcomes of that state (e.g., hope).

Evaluation phase

Following the emotional labeling of the uncertainty discrepancy, TMIM argues that
individuals make two sets of assessments in determining whether to seek information
from a particular other. First, they determine outcome expectancy, and then reflect
on perceived efficacies. Both constructs come from Bandura’s social cognitive theory
and related work (see Bandura, 1997). TMIM defines outcome expectancies as peo-
ple’s ­perceptions of the costs and rewards that would come from seeking information
about the target issue from a particular individual and in a particular manner (e.g.,
directly, indirectly). Outcome expectancies (OEs) include both outcomes that they
expect to come from the act of seeking information (what TMIM labels “process
OEs”) and from the result of the search (content OEs). The example of employees
seeking information about job security from their supervisor serves to illustrate the
difference in types of OEs: a process OE may be the person’s belief that negative gos-
sip will come from coworkers discovering that they sought information about the
topic from the s­ upervisor; a content OE may be that the supervisor will respond
with reassurance. Process and content OEs combine to form a general assessment of
the relative costs and benefits that people believe will result from their search for
information about the issue from a particular individual. TMIM proposes that
positive OEs increase the likelihood of direct information‐seeking, while negative
OEs discourage it.
Self‐efficacy—the other component of the evaluation phase—is defined in TMIM
as the perceived ability to engage in a particular information‐management behavior or
produce a particular information‐management outcome. Elevated perceptions of
­efficacy have been shown to be a powerful influence on successful performance (see
Bandura, 1997). TMIM argues that people assess three types of efficacy when
­determining whether to seek or avoid information about an important issue for which
they have uncertainty discrepancy: communication efficacy, or the ability to skillfully
communicate about the issue to the target other; coping efficacy, or the ability to
­successfully cope with the expected outcomes, whatever they may be; and target efficacy,
or the assessment of whether the target has the sought‐after information and will be
honest when asked. Together, they are expected to directly impact individuals’
information‐management decisions.
Afifi and Weiner (2004) argued for a particular direction of influence between
­outcome expectancy and efficacy that generally contradicts Bandura’s (1997) p
­ osition.
Specifically, TMIM proposes that individuals first assess the outcomes they expect
4

from a particular information‐management strategy (e.g., information-seeking from

a specific friend), then reflect on their three types of efficacy. The logic is that the type
of expectancy (e.g., an expectation that a search for information from children about
their drug use will reveal heavy use) necessarily impacts associated efficacies.
Bandura, on the other hand, proposed the reverse causal direction—that efficacy
shapes outcome expectancy. Although no tests of TMIM to date have tested the
direction of influence in a causal fashion, Williams’s (2010) review of studies that
examine the causal direction of influence between these two constructs reveals con-
siderable evidence consistent with the direction proposed in TMIM. Additional work
is needed, especially within the TMIM framework, to further test the association
b­etween OE and efficacy.
Once they make OE and efficacy assessments, individuals choose among three
information‐management options: seeking information from particular others, avoid-
ing information from them, or cognitively reassessing their interest in information.
Broadly speaking, the theory predicts that individuals are increasingly likely to seek
information directly to the extent that they expect positive outcomes and have elevated
expectancies across all three efficacy types.

Decision phase

Much of the early research on uncertainty reduction focused on three types of

­strategies: passive (e.g., observation), active (e.g., asking third parties), and interactive
(e.g., asking the target). The conclusion from these efforts was that individuals
­generally preferred passive uncertainty reduction efforts, if possible, before turning to
interactive strategies, the exception being initial interactions, where individuals relied
on question asking to quickly learn basic information about the other. However, as
scholars increasingly attended to individuals’ propensity to avoid information and to
their periodic preferences to maintain, rather than reduce, uncertainty, they also
recognized a broader range of possible information‐management strategies. For
­
example, several studies show that romantic partners generally avoid, rather than seek,
information about their partners’ past sexual activities, among other topics. Relatedly,
individuals at risk for sexually transmitted infections generally avoid testing for them
and those with hereditary links to chronic illnesses typically decline offers for genetic
testing. These data led Fanos and Johnson (1995) to conclude that “remaining unaware
of their carrier status may serve significant psychological functions for individuals
at risk” (p. 85).
Given these avoidance patterns in response to uncertainty, TMIM proposed a range
of potential information‐management strategies in response to uncertainty ­discrepancy:
information avoidance, information‐seeking, and cognitive reappraisal. These broad
categories of responses are further reduced to more fine‐grained strategy possibilities:
the decision to avoid information interpersonally can produce active avoidance of that
person and/or topic (i.e., by making explicit efforts to avoid the topic or person) or
passive avoidance (i.e., by choosing not to bring up the topic but also not making
­concerted efforts at ensuring its avoidance), the decision to seek information can vary
 5

from the direct to the indirect, and efforts to cognitively reappraise reflects a decision
to reconsider either issue importance or desired levels of uncertainty.

Information provider

A relatively unique aspect of the TMIM is its explicit articulation of a dyadic process of
information management. Afifi and Weiner (2004) argued that once an individual
seeks information from another, the target becomes an explicit part of the information‐
management process and goes through a similar process in determining what
information to provide, if any. The process starts for the information providers once
they recognize the intent to seek information about a particular issue. At that point,
they make assessments in an evaluation phase, which leads to the decision phase. The
evaluation phase is nearly identical to that described for the seeker, except that it reflects
the perspective of someone who is determining the outcome expectancies associated
with providing information to the seeker and the related efficacies.
Outcome expectancies are assessments that the provider makes about the costs and
benefits of providing information. Like the process outlined for the seeker, TMIM
argues that the provider’s OEs impact their efficacy assessment, which in turn, shape
their information provision decision. Also like the seeker, the providers makes three
efficacy judgments: whether they have the communicative competence to respond
effectively to the information request (communication efficacy), whether they are able
to cope with the result that comes from providing the sought‐after information (coping
efficacy), and whether they think that the seeker is able and willing to manage the
information given (target efficacy).
The dyadic nature of the information‐management process is central to the theoret-
ical framework of TMIM. Uncertainty discrepancies, OEs, and efficacy often adjust
within a single interaction based on the information that the seeker and provider
receive from one another. As Afifi and Weiner (2004, pp. 184–185) write: “even subtle
cues from providers may lead seekers to make adjustments across all phases of the
model, including shifts in their level of uncertainty, anxiety, outcome assessments and
efficacy assessments, ultimately leading to mid‐exchange shifts in information‐seeking
behavior.” For example, a man who approaches a friend with the intention of finding
out whether she has interest in a night out may abort the conversation before asking
that question once he reads body language that changes his OEs in a negative direction,
thus changing his efficacy. In the same vein, she may have switched her information
provision strategy from one that was indirect to one that was more direct had he
continued to pursue that information‐seeking path.

Tests of the theory

Several studies have tested the success of TMIM as a predictor of information‐seeking

decisions. The results have generally offered good support for the ability of the
­framework to predict information‐seeking strategies across a wide range of contexts.
6

For example, Afifi and Weiner (2006) found the theory to accurately predict college
students’ decisions to seek sexual health information from their partners, Afifi and
Afifi (2009) showed it to account for adolescents’ avoidance of information about the
state of their parents’ relationship, and Fowler and Afifi (2011) were able to predict
decisions by older adults to seek information from their parents about eldercare wishes
across a three‐week period. Several scholars have also utilized parts of the theory to
help them test information‐management decisions. For example, Morse and colleagues
(2013) applied evaluation phase assessments to predict college students’ information‐
seeking about their friends’ illicit drug use; McCurry, Schrodt, and Ledbetter (2012)
focused on the role played by TMIM’s efficacy components in discussing religious
topics in romantic relationships; and Jang and Tian (2012) applied most aspects of
TMIM but focused on the roles of outcome expectancy and communication efficacy in
college students’ pursuit of knowledge about uncertainty‐increasing events in close
­relationships. Other studies have examined TMIM or its components in predicting dis-
cussions about sexual assault, organ donation, deception, and healthcare, among other
contexts. Indeed, TMIM has seemed to find most traction among scholars interested in
­understanding health‐related information management.
The sample used in tests of the theory have ranged widely, including adult next‐of‐
kin, parents, adolescents, health professionals, the elderly, adult children, and college
students. The primary method for studies examining TMIM include measurements of
the ­interpretation and evaluation phase variables in an entry survey, with decision
phase variables measured approximately three weeks later. Scholars also often assess
past information‐seeking behavior at Time 1 (entry survey) to control for inherent
­differences among participants at the start of the study. The designs are typically
­correlational in nature.

Critiques of the theory and future directions

While TMIM has been useful to account for information‐seeking decisions across a
wide range of contexts, there are several ways in which tests of the theory can be
improved and/or extended beyond their current state. First, the performance of the
three efficacy assessments as predictors of information‐seeking has been inconsistent.
Communication efficacy is regularly the most powerful predictor of decision phase
strategies, but coping efficacy rarely emerges as a significant influence in the ­framework,
and the impact of target efficacy varies dramatically. One explanation for the failure of
coping efficacy is that the contexts in which the theory has been tested have not involved
a sufficiently high threat to self. In other words, the contexts are not ones in which
­coping efficacy is a sufficiently relevant concern to information‐seeking decisions.
Another account is that the OEs that participants have held in studies to date have been
generally positive, thereby making coping efficacy assessments moot (in other words,
there is no need to consider coping when one expects positive outcomes). Still, its poor
performance remains an issue that requires additional explanation.
Second, the influence of OEs on efficacy has varied across studies. The most likely
explanation is one that Afifi and Weiner (2004) offered in their original articulation of
 7

the theory. Specifically, individuals who have positive OEs are unlikely to rely on
­efficacy assessments before making a decision to seek information. There is little to be
lost by gathering information in those cases. As such, it is not surprising that efficacy
plays a lesser role. Still, the inconsistency of the association between OE and efficacy
deserves additional attention.
Third, the theory as is stands needs fine‐tuning to account for situations in which
­individuals seek information despite negative OEs and/or efficacy assessments. As it
stands, there is no theoretical mechanism that adequately explains such decisions,
although they certainly exist (even if in the minority of times). For example, individuals
may seek information from their partner about infidelity even if they strongly suspect
it and have low communication, coping, and target efficacy on the issue. One p ­ ossibility
is that certain emotions over‐ride the typical impact of evaluation phase assessments in
shaping individuals’ decisions. Afifi and Morse’s (2009) revision of TMIM to include
emotional appraisal theories adds a direct path between the appraisal of the uncertainty
discrepancy and the decision phase. That may be the best way to account for those
cases; unfortunately, no study to date has tested whether that addition sufficiently
­captures them.
A fourth limitation of existing research on TMIM is that studies to date have almost
exclusively focused on the information‐seeker, ignoring TMIM’s unique commitment
to the dyadic and fluid nature of the information‐management process. Future studies
must take more seriously the interchange between seeker and provider. What are the
critical features that impact provider decisions? How quickly do the seeker’s evaluation
phase assessments change based on provider feedback? How might we model the role
shifts between seeker and provider? All these and other questions are critical to more
thoroughly understanding the interactive nature of information management.
Fifth, we need a better understanding of the neurological and biological responses to
uncertainty and its management. Preliminary studies have discovered the neurological
correlates of uncertainty, but no investigations to date have tracked neurological shifts
to the information‐management process outlined in TMIM. Advances in that area will
help us better understand neurological, biological and/or drug‐related factors affecting
individuals’ information‐seeking and -avoiding choices, with important implications
for addressing at‐risk behaviors.
A sixth way forward with TMIM is that more attention be given to outcomes that follow
the decision phase. For example, one might ask how particular information‐management
decisions impact well‐being, or how they shape future outcome e­ xpectancies and/or
efficacy assessments. The answers to those questions may provide important insights
into the consequences of the information‐management choices that both seekers
and providers make.
Seventh, tests of the theory have failed to keep up with the drastic increase in online
and other technology‐focused information seeking efforts. With social media sites
such as Facebook and text‐ and application‐based methods (e.g., WhatsApp)
­increasingly being used as the dominant method for communicating with one another,
studies of information‐seeking, generally, and TMIM, specifically, must examine how
these channels impact the decision phase and any outcomes that follow it. For i­nstance,
one might ask if certain outcome and efficacy assessments lead individuals to prefer
8

text‐based, as opposed to face‐to‐face, information‐seeking strategies. Relatedly, one

might examine how various channels impact information provider choices and/or
how a channel shapes post‐decision outcomes (e.g., well‐being).
Finally, studies of TMIM, while they generally include over‐time data, have been
exclusively correlational, thereby failing to test the accuracy of the theory’s proposed
causal structure. There is a pressing need to test the proposed causal influence of TMIM
variables on each other.

Summary

In sum, TMIM has rapidly emerged as a useful and influential framework for those
studying individuals’ information‐management choices within interpersonal
­interactions. Afifi and colleagues’ use of uncertainty discrepancy (as opposed to uncer-
tainty) as the driving force, their focus on outcome expectancies and multiple forms of
efficacy as primary factors that shape information‐management decisions, and the spec-
ificity of TMIM’s predictive structure all contribute to the success that TMIM has had.
However, there is also some work to be done before TMIM is able to adequately explain
the wide spectrum of conditions under which individuals choose to seek information
and providers decide to offer it up. There is also unmet promise for the theory to be
applied in ways that can help communities better understand a wide range of behavior
related to information management decisions. The future of the theory is dependent on
the commitment of scholars to address some of avenues articulated in this entry.

SEE ALSO: Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory; Appraisal Theories of

Emotion; Interpersonal Communication Skill/Competence; Predicted Outcome Value
Theory; Problematic Integration Theory; Relational Dialectics Theory; Relational
Turbulence Model; Relational Uncertainty; Topic Avoidance; Uncertainty and
Communication in Organizations; Uncertainty and Relationship Development;
Uncertainty Increasing Strategies; Uncertainty Management in Health; Uncertainty
Management Theory; Uncertainty Reduction Strategies; Uncertainty Reduction Theory

References

Afifi, W. A., & Afifi, T. D. (2009). Avoidance among adolescents in conversations about their
parents’ relationship: Applying the theory of motivated information management. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 488–511. doi: 10.1177/0265407509350869
Afifi, W. A., & Morse, C. R. (2009). Expanding the role of emotion in the theory of motivated
information management. In T. D. Afifi & W. A. Afifi (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management,
and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 87–105). New York, NY: Routledge.
Afifi, W. A. & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management.
Communication Theory, 14, 167–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2885.2004.tb00310.x
Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2006). Seeking information about sexual health: Applying the theory
of motivated information management. Human Communication Research, 32, 35–57. doi:
10.1111/j.1468‐2958.2006.00002.x
 9

Babrow, A. S. (2001). Uncertainty, value, communication, and problematic integration. Journal

of Communication, 51, 553–573. doi: 10.1093/joc/51.3.553
Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interactions and beyond:
Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1, 99–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2958.1975.tb00258.x
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication,
51, 477–497. doi: 10.1093/joc/51.3.477
Chaiken, S., Giner‐Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression
motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–578).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Fanos, J. H., & Johnson, J. P. (1995). Barriers to carrier testing for adult cystic fibrosis sibs: The
importance of not knowing. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 59, 85–91. doi: 10.1002/
ajmg.1320590117
Fowler, C., & Afifi, W. A. (2011). Applying the theory of motivated information management to
adult children’s discussions of caregiving with aging parents. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 28, 507–535. doi: 10.1177/0265407510384896
Jang, S. A., & Tian, Y. (2012). The effects of communication efficacy on information‐seeking
following events that increase uncertainty: A cross‐lagged panel analysis. Communication
Quarterly, 60, 234–254. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2012.669325
McCurry, A. L., Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2012). Relational uncertainty and communica-
tion efficacy as predictors of religious conversations in romantic relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 1085–1108. doi: 10.1177/0265407512449402
Morse, C. R., Volkman, J. E., Samter, W., et al. (2013). The influence of uncertainty and social
support on information seeking concerning illicit stimulant use among young adults. Health
Communication, 28, 366–377. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.689095
Williams, D. M. (2010). Outcome expectancy and self‐efficacy: Theoretical implications of an
unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 417–425. doi:
10.1177/1088868310368802

Further reading

Afifi, T. D., & Afifi, W. A. (Eds.). (2009). Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure
decisions: Theories and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Afifi, W. A. (2009). Uncertainty and information management in interpersonal contexts.
In  S.  Smith & S. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research
(pp. 94–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall

Walid A. Afifi is a professor and chair of the Department of Communication Studies

at the University of Iowa. He has served as chair of the Interpersonal Division in both
the National and International Communication Associations. His research program
focuses on individuals’ experience and management of uncertainty.