Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty management, and other curious constructs

被引:51
作者
Bradac, JJ [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1093/joc/51.3.456
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
This paper compares 3 theories examining the role of communication in producing and coping with subjective uncertainty. Uncertainty reduction theory offers axioms and derived theorems that describe communicative and noncommunicative causes and consequences of uncertainty, The narrow scope of the theory and its axiomatic form are both advantageous and disadvantageous. Problematic integration and uncertainty management theories are comparatively broad, and they exhibit an open, web-like structure. The former theory scrutinizes the complex intersection of probability assessments and evaluations of the objects of these assessments, whereas the latter examines the various ways in which people cope with uncertainty, including sometimes attempting to increase it. The paper also compares meanings of "uncertainty" in the 3 theories as well as the roles played by natural language in the communication-uncertainty interface.
引用
收藏
页码:456 / 476
页数:21
相关论文
共 49 条
[11]  
Berger C.R., 1987, Interpersonal Processes, P39
[12]  
Berger C. R., 1975, HUMAN COMMUNICATION, V1, P99, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1468-2958.1975.TB00258.X
[13]  
Berger C.R., 1982, LANGUAGE SOCIAL KNOW
[14]  
Berger CB, 1997, PLANNING STRATEGIC I
[15]   WHEN A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING - THE DEBILITATING EFFECTS OF PLAN COMPLEXITY ON VERBAL FLUENCY [J].
BERGER, CR ;
KAROL, SH ;
JORDAN, JM .
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, 1989, 16 (01) :91-119
[16]  
Bowlby J., 1980, Attachment and loss, V1
[17]  
Bowlby J., 1969, ATTACHMENT LOSS, V1
[18]  
Bowlby J., 1973, ATTACHMENT LOSS, V1
[19]  
Bradac, 1980, SOCIAL PSYCHOL CONTE, P193
[20]   MENS AND WOMENS USE OF INTENSIFIERS AND HEDGES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING INTERACTION - MOLAR AND MOLECULAR ANALYSES [J].
BRADAC, JJ ;
MULAC, A ;
THOMPSON, SA .
RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION, 1995, 28 (02) :93-116