Talk it out 1
Running head: TALK IT OUT
Talk it out: How Individuals Reduce Uncertainty in Small Groups
Megan H. L. Tucker
George Mason University
Talk it out 2
Abstract
This study examines how members of a small group reduce uncertainty and how that affects
group processes and outcomes. Researching how individuals reduce uncertainty in an
exceptionally small group contributes to preexisting literature that addresses uncertainty
reduction theory and its application. Aspects of group socialization are also addressed. Knowing
how uncertainty reduction occurs may lead to more efficient group interactions. Limitations and
future implications are also addressed.
Talk it out 3
Talk it out:
How individuals reduce uncertainty in small groups
The success or productivity of a group is widely dependent on interactions between group
members. However, high levels of uncertainty may affect how the group functions and
completes tasks. Individuals attempt to reduce uncertainty when communicating in groups, in
hopes of establishing a positive rapport among members, and successfully completing
assignments. At a group level, socialization provides the skills and habits necessary for acting
and participating effectively within a society (Clausen, 1968). The axioms of uncertainty
reduction theory, initial socialization among insiders and newcomers, and how social identity is
formed will be examined for possible contribution to reducing uncertainty in this particular
group setting. All of these components contribute to how they will perform and communicate
within a group setting. This research is exploring how a small group reduces uncertainty and
shows signs of socialization.
Review of Literature
In order to draw connections between ideas, literature from three different areas has been
collected. First, this research examines literature on uncertainty reduction theory (Berger &
Calabrese, 1975). Socialization is analyzed in preexisting literature to find common ways in
which group members socialize into groups. Specifically the group model of socialization
(Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999) is examined to find similar situations in this small group
setting. Finally, social identity is researched in order to find a link between uncertainty reduction
theory and the hindrance of social identity development in groups. Group members’ behaviors
and methods of socialization may contribute to ways in which they reduce uncertainty in a group
Talk it out 4
setting. Issues with each of these areas of study are discussed to illustrate possible limitations
which may emerge in this research.
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) examines how strangers, upon meeting, go through
specific steps to reduce uncertainty about one another, and form perceptions of likes and dislikes
between them (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The authors note seven different axioms associated
with uncertainty reduction theory, as well as 21 deductively formulated theorems. The seven
axioms are broken down as such: (1) Verbal communication – As the level of verbal
communication increases, uncertainty will decrease. (2) Nonverbal warmth – As nonverbal
expressiveness increases, uncertainty will be reduced. (3) Information-seeking – High levels of
uncertainty cause increases in information-seeking behavior. As uncertainty decreases, so will
the need for high levels of information-seeking. (4) Self-disclosure – A decrease in intimacy
level occurs when there is high uncertainty. (5) Reciprocity – High levels of uncertainty produce
more symmetrical question exchanges. (6) Similarity – Personal similarity will decrease
uncertainty about one another, while dissimilarity will produce higher levels of uncertainty.
Finally, (7) Liking – An increase in uncertainty will lead to a decrease in liking, however, less
uncertainty leads to an increase in liking.
The initial interactions in groups are of superlative importance when reducing
uncertainty. As previously noted uncertainty reduction is presumed to be typical in initial
interactions and occurs through strategic use of talk, questioning and disclosure (Berger 1979;
Douglas, 1994). Neuliep and Grohskopf (2000) conducted two studies that found more
communication satisfaction after initial interactions where uncertainty was reduced. They proved
their hypothesis that uncertainty reduction has a direct correlation to positive outcomes. This
Talk it out 5
research looks at how quickly uncertainty is reduced, especially in the first group interaction.
The first meeting may set the tone for the duration of the group.
Uncertainty reduction theory has been applied to explaining the socialization process in
organizational settings (Falcione & Wilson, 1988), as well as in an interpersonal context
(Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999). Studies have examined group identification and social
identity as it relates to uncertainty (Hogg et al., 2005). Hogg et al., (2005) conducted two studies
that tested the effect of self-uncertainty on group identification as a function of ingroup
entitativity, or the perception of a group as a pure entity. The authors found that participants
identified more strongly when they were uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Much of
the focus of uncertainty reduction lies in information-seeking strategies (Berger, 1979; Douglas,
1990; Douglas, 1994). Strangers or group member in this case, ask questions to learn more about
the other person(s) involved in the interaction. Berger (1979) argued that strangers will routinely
self-disclose because it can induce a similar exchange of information among others involved.
Thus there may be reciprocal exchange of information-seeking among group members. Berger
and Calabrese (1975) found that uncertainty over long periods of time could have a negative
impact on groups. It is pertinent to examine how uncertainty is reduced in small groups, where
inclusion is unavoidable by members. Each individual needs to contribute and interact with other
group members in order to complete assigned tasks. For tasks with fast approaching deadlines, it
becomes crucial to reduce uncertainty quickly to maintain high levels of productivity.
There has been some controversy over studying uncertainty reduction in initial
interactions (Clatterbuck, 1979; Sunnafrank, 1986). These studies have proven inconclusive as
well though, because they only examined a person’s prior recollections of interactions and not
Talk it out 6
ongoing interactions. Thus, this study is focusing on a groups’ ongoing interaction as it occurs,
and not based on memory of previous conversations between small group members.
Socialization
Focusing on initial socialization may contribute to uncertainty reduction, or at least offer
clues as to how individuals manage uncertainty in groups. Haslett and Ruebush (1999) discuss
the effect that individuals have in groups and what level of influence is at stake. The authors
hone in specifically on differences among individuals and the impact that they have both
positively and negatively. Similarly, Anderson, Riddle, and Martin (1999) discuss the
socialization process that occurs in groups. They assert that attention should be paid to positive
socialization in groups because it can create stronger bonds and allow for more effective
communication among members, leading to easier conflict resolution. They incorporate different
models with which to examine at socialization including phase models, communication models,
and disciplinary models. Jones (1986) examines the relationship between socialization tactics
used by organizations and a series of roles and personal outcomes. The author also looks at the
effects that self-efficacy has on role orientation in groups. The findings of the study reveals a
pattern of relationships between tactics and outcomes supporting the proposition that different
socialization tactics lead to different outcomes of socialization. Social dimensions of
socialization are particularly significant in influencing role orientation and adjustments.
Some interactionist research has specifically focused on socialization of newcomers into
a group and their role behaviors as such (Jones, 1986; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Reichers, 1987).
Jones (1986) found that newcomers’ levels of self-efficacy moderates the effects of
institutionalized tactics on role orientation. The author suggests that the six socialization tactics
are all instrumental in leading to role orientations. Ashforth and Saks (1996) also focused on
Talk it out 7
socialization tactics of newcomers in the context of Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) model of
tactics. This model consists of a “bipolar continuum” of tactics including: collective vs.
individual, formal vs. informal, sequential vs. random, fixed vs. variable, serial vs. disjunctive,
and investiture vs. divestiture socialization. Reichers (1987) uses a duel interactionist approach
by looking at symbolic interactionism and person-by-situation frameworks upon which to study
initial socialization of newcomers.
Social Identity
Abrams, Hogg, Hinkle and Otten describe the historical development, metatheoretical
background, and current state of the social identity perspective. This approach holds that people
do categorize themselves and others according to salient differences in a social context (2005, p.
100). The authors offer an analysis of intergroup relations among large-scale social categories.
Abrams et al., (2005) explores further the notion of deindividuation versus depersonalization in
groups, as well as inclusion and exclusion of information in a group setting. The social identity
approach states that people’s salient identity can be characterized on a continuum from very
personal or unique, to highly shared or social attributes (Abrams et al., 2005; Green, 1999).
Thus ones social identity may have a great impact on the individual and the group relationship as
a whole. Social identity may form after the group has been established for a while or it may be
initially established.
There has been some controversy in studying social identity including the reductionist
point of view which does not discuss cultural and structural considerations (Reicher, 2004).
Huddy (2001) evaluates the utility of social identity theory by identifying issues that have
hindered its application. Some scholars have taken time to break down social identity theory into
more basic components, perhaps to circumvent such issues of application. Brewer (2001)
Talk it out 8
proposes four different terms to distinguish between social identity types: person-based social
identities, relational social identities, group-based social identities, and collective identities.
Based on previous literature that involves uncertainty reduction and group socialization,
this study poses the following research questions:
RQ1: How do members of a small group reduce uncertainty?
RQ2: How does socialization occur in a small group as uncertainty is reduced?
Methods
Approach
This research qualitatively examined how small group members reduce uncertainty. This
study utilized a qualitative method because it allowed the researcher to observe data from
multiple perspectives and interpret the meaning of findings via a naturalistic approach by
studying phenomena in a natural setting (Mann & Stewart, 2000). As in all other qualitative
research, the findings of this study are subjective and open to different interpretations (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). However, the goal of this study was to find a common group of themes that could
be connected to the literature.
A phenomenological analysis was utilized in order to find emerging concepts that could
be categorized and analyzed for connectivity. The researcher labeled concepts from the
transcripts that may show interconnectedness to the theories explored within the literature.
Phenomenology, as defined by Boeree (1998), is the description of someone’s experiences,
whether they are of the researcher or the observed participant. This research focused on the basic
phenomenon of what was occurring within the groups’ interactions that led to the reduction of
uncertainty (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Participants
Talk it out 9
This study involved a small group of Communication graduate students from an eastcoast public university, who met on various occasions to discuss class projects. The group was
formed for two task-based projects which would span the length of one semester. For each of the
projects, the group members were asked to meet during and after class periods to engage in
discussion. The naturalistic perspective (Frey, 1994) encouraged researchers to study small
groups as they occur in their natural settings and required scholars to consider research settings.
Thus, three meetings for the first project they were assigned were audio recorded and
transcribed.
Demographically, the group consisted of three female students and one male student.
The group members range from 22 years of age to 30 years of age. The group itself could be
considered as a zero task-history group, as each member had not worked together before.
However, some of the students in the group were prior acquaintances from being in the same
graduate program for an extended period of time.
The culture of the group consisted of a female foreign exchange student who was new to
the graduate program. There were two graduating masters students, one male and one female,
who knew one another from other courses prior to this one. Finally, one female student in the
group just entered the master’s program that semester, but had prior experience working with
other students within the department.
Procedures
Transcripts from these group meetings were used for a line-by-line existentialphenomenological analysis. In this sense the researcher was able to focus on specific experiences
of specific individuals and the group involved in actual situations (von Eckartsberg, 1998a).
Specifically, von Eckartsberg (1998a) notes four steps in this process which this research
Talk it out 10
followed: (1) identify the phenomenon in which I am interested; (2) gather descriptive accounts
from respondents regarding the experience of the phenomenon; (3) study the respondents’
accounts with the intention of identifying any underlying commonalities and patterns; and (4)
present the findings.
Each transcript was analyzed for emergent themes. The researcher paid closest attention
to transcripts from the first group meeting, as initial uncertainty reduction is the most
pronounced in this meeting. The next two transcripts were analyzed for other instance of
uncertainty reduction tactics. To maintain confidentiality among group members, each group
member was given a code name. There were three female members and one male member so
codes were made as such: [Group Member F1], or [Group Member M1] etc.
Findings
After analyzing certain interactions that led to uncertainty reduction, the researcher
returned to the literature and compared these coded interactions with the seven axioms of URT
as noted by Berger and Calabrese (1975). This allowed the researcher to answer the first research
question more thoroughly. While some of the axioms did not strictly apply to this group, others
were obvious contributions to the groups’ uncertainty reduction. Six of the seven axioms applied
to the data that were analyzed. The second axiom was not included in this analysis because it
addresses nonverbal warmth. The data that was analyzed is only through audio tapes and email
interactions. Thus, nonverbal interactions could not be measured.
Verbal Communication Axiom
The first axiom addresses verbal communication among the group members. Obviously
any verbal interaction among group members constitutes as a part of this axiom. Upon listening
to the group meeting tapes, it is immediately apparent that this group gradually became very
Talk it out 11
vocal. There are notable pauses in the first tape that are less frequent in the subsequent two.
According to the first axiom, as strangers enter into an interaction they will begin to talk
with one another, and thus decrease uncertainty. Over time, uncertainty will decrease and
members will talk more frequently (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). By the final taped meeting, there
were very few notable pauses in conversation, and some interruption occurred among members.
Thus, verbal communication did increase, as uncertainty decreased.
Information Seeking Axiom
The third axiom that Berger and Calabrese (1975) note is information-seeking. This takes
place a great deal in the first group meeting. Though this was not a zero history group (group
members were all part of the same academic graduate program), it was a zero task-history group.
As such, participants did not need to introduce themselves, but they did need to disclose some
information in their areas of interest in order to start work on their tasks. As Berger and
Calabrese (1975) note, the third axiom suggests that higher levels of uncertainty cause
individuals to ask more questions of the others. Over time, the questioning will decrease.
[Group Member F1]: … Should we start talking about our research interests and seeing if
there’s any that overlap? Maybe we can do something like that as our problem, or an area
where somebody maybe has expertise in versus picking a problem we know nothing
about or…?
[Group Member F2]: No, no.
[Group Member M1]: Fine by me.
[Group Member F1]: Okay. Okay James? *Laughs*
Talk it out 12
In this case [Group Member F1] is trying to start conversation by probing into the group
members’ areas of interest. The only male group member is the first to respond from her
suggestion:
[Group Member F1]: Any other topic areas outside of breast cancer, anything in general?
[Group Member M1]: I’m open to anything really. As long as it’s real and not
immaterial. I’d like us to work on something that we actually have a chance of solving.
More information-seeking occurs when the group tries to decide what issues they would like the
project to focus on. Again, female group member, [F1] is the most vocal in information seeking:
[Group Member F1]: Do you think we should do a campus issue or a regional issue? Like
should we do something that we can use again later?
[Group Member M1]: We could do that. Um, I’m concerned about doing something on
campus because like they said before, either it’s all been done before or it’s such a
chronic issue…
Self-Disclosure Axiom
Similar to axiom three, the fourth axiom deals with Self-Disclosure. Berger and
Calabrese (1975) suggest that in initial interactions, strangers are less likely to disclose personal
information because they do not feel comfortable doing so. This can change over time. In this
group some self-disclosure happens early on, but it is not incredibly personal. Most interactions
are task and work-related. Very little personal information is shared until the last transcript.
[Group Member M1]: Um, let’s see. Well, my background I guess is semi health-riskinterpersonal. Um, I’m very interested in the practical nature of things so it’s easier for
Talk it out 13
me to gravitate towards those kinds of fields. My thesis is more geared towards health.
My undergraduate is more towards interpersonal and...
[Group Member F1]: What issue in health are you studying?
[Group Member M1]: Um, I’m studying breast cancer and how source perceptions affect
message processing.
Likewise, [F1] and [F2], another female group member, disclose similar information that is
related primarily to their areas of interest:
[Group Member F1]: Um, well I generally, what I’ve done is more interpersonal. Some
intercultural as well. My topic is adoption. And I sort of like the idea of providing some
sort of literature or knowledge based... something like that. Like, here this is a problem,
but this is what, here’s what you can do to solve it. Like for me, I know looking at
adoption I’ve looked at reunions. There’s not a lot out there about reunions...
[Group Member F1]: So how about you?
[Group Member F2]: Me? Um, well I’m interested in new media. I don’t know why but
every time I have to do something since my second year undergrad I end up doing
something with new media. I started with analyzing blogs. Then I went through content
analysis of websites. And now for my final project here I’m doing my final project on
Facebook…
Another part of the self-disclosure axiom in this situation is the admittance of lacking certain
knowledge about different areas of study. All three initial group members disclosed that they
shared areas of weakness:
Talk it out 14
[Group Member F2]: I mean I don’t know many things about health problems because I
didn’t know the department here was so concerned with health. I haven’t studied
anything about health before.
[Group Member F1]: Well I will be done with my Masters in comm in May and I have
not taken one health course here.
[Group Member F2]: Wow.
[Group Member F1]: Yeah. Although I did a health comm project this summer because I
was in qualitative analysis. But that’s the only thing. And I’m getting to present a paper
on that and I have no idea what I’m doing!
[Group Member M1]: Oh fun.
[Group Member F1]: Yeah I’m like “Okay Melinda, thanks!” But um, so yeah I’m not
very well versed.
[Group Member M1]: Well I’m, I’m certainly not an expert in health. It’s just what I’ve
gravitated towards in my thesis and I studied under Gary. So I’m not exactly what you’d
call Mr. Health.
It was interesting to note that during the second group meeting there was little to no selfdisclosure, even with a new group member present. [F3], a third female member of the group,
joined late, but dove straight into the task without introducing herself (on tape at least), and
without the group asking what her interests were.
The final group meeting that was transcribed began with some self-disclosure of what the
group members did following a meeting that they had had the night before, which was not taped.
[Group Member F1]: I was really sleepy after that.
[Group Member F2]: I was feeling so bad yesterday when I got home. I fell directly into
Talk it out 15
bed.
Reciprocity Axiom
The fifth axiom is that of Reciprocity. The literature states that when strangers have high
levels of uncertainty, there are more symmetrical question exchanges in the interaction. As this
uncertainty wanes, so does the need for equal exchanges (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).
Reciprocity is obvious in the first set of transcripts. The exchanges are verbally equal for
most of the interaction. However, in the following two transcripts, [Group Member F1] takes an
obvious role as the leader, and thus speaks more frequently. [Group Member M1] also has a
more active voice, but usually only in response to initial recommendations. The other two female
members contribute less frequently; however, the newcomer [Group Member F3] uses
information seeking in the final transcribed meeting as to become a greater contributing member
of the group.
An example of initial reciprocity occurs within the first few minutes of the primary
meeting of the group:
[Group Member F2]: No, no.
[Group Member M1]: Fine by me.
[Group Member F1]: Okay. Okay James *laughs*
[Group Member M1]: Um, let’s see…
There are only a few words exchanged by each group member before they start self-disclosing
about their research interests. Later in that meeting, reciprocity occurs when group members are
discussing ideas:
[Group Member F2]: Yes. I think there will be some sort of problem. We could check
them and see if there is some particular problem that we could solve now.
Talk it out 16
[Group Member F1]: The other thing too is that if there isn’t a page, that could be a
solution to people’s voices being heard. Like if all that they have are town hall meetings
and they can’t make it. Like I’m sure they’d have some sort of forum, but it may not be
on there.
[Group Member M1]: Maybe we could look at alternatives that people could look to as
opposed to town hall meetings. Because lets face it they’re very dated now. Maybe look
at ways to pull a younger crowd in. Like Facebook. Like our own comm department has
its own Facebook page.
Each group member spends about the same amount of time exchanging ideas and contributing to
the task dilemma. As previously mentioned, reciprocity decreased among group members
quickly in this group. By the end of the first group meeting, the group had loosely established
roles, and the tasks had been divided amongst the existing members.
Similarity Axiom
Similarity is the sixth axiom discussed. Berger and Calabrese (1975) note that when
strangers can decrease uncertainty if they share similarities, whereas uncertainty increases with
dissimilarities. As previously mentioned in self-disclosure, group members shared that they were
not well versed in health communication problems. The group also shows a great deal of
agreement when decision-making. There were practically no conflicts in the taped group
interactions, nor where there conflicts in the email messages. When [Group Member F1]
proposes an idea, the other three group members have similar responses:
[Group Member F1]: I don’t know. Obviously walk or ride a bike. I don’t know, I mean,
do we like this idea? Do we want to try a different type of campaign?
Talk it out 17
[Group Member F2]: Actually I prefer this one to some of the other ones.
[Group Member F3]: Yeah. I think this one is best.
[Group Member M1]: Yeah, let’s get on board with this.
The group members’ constant level of agreement provides a segue into the next axiom.
Liking Axiom
The seventh and final axiom is Liking. Liking is similar to the sixth axiom in that they
usually work in tandem. Axiom seven notes that an increase in uncertainty will lead to a decrease
in liking, where as a decrease in uncertainty will increase liking. Group members become much
more at ease with one another in the last two group meetings that were transcribed. In the first
taped meeting there is very little laughter or teasing, which becomes more commonplace in the
last two:
[Group Member F1]: Woo hoo!
*Laughter*
[Group Member M1: Ha ha! Now but what about our tasks? What do we do now?
[Group Member F3]: This Is not going to be a social group J***s! This is a task oriented
group! What are you talking about!?
*Laughter*
Liking becomes even more apparent in the final taped meeting, when they start the tape. There is
a long exchange between the female members of the group where they are joking about meeting
the night before.
[Group Member F1]: Okay. What I was saying was after having so much fun with each
other yesterday, with that noted sarcasm.
*Laughter*
Talk it out 18
[Group Member F1]: We can help her! Oh I had fun until about eight, and then I lost it.
[Group Member F2]: Yah.
In the email exchanges, there is a certain level of professional politeness, as well as liking. Each
email between members was either started or finished with informal greetings or well-wishing.
For example, [Group Member F2] wrote, “See you mon. Have a super weekend!” Likewise,
[Group Member F1] responds to [M1] with, “J***s, this is some great research! Have a great
weekend everyone.” Though these are all minor, they are more than just formalities. They each
have a laid back tone and use exclamation points for emphasis. All of which are characteristic of
positive interactions.
Group Socialization
As the literature note, socialization and social identity may develop after uncertainty has
been reduced, and the group has been fully established. The data available for this project did not
allow for the researcher to fully explore the emergence of social identity. There were aspects of
socialization that emerged in this group after uncertainty was reduced. According to the Group
Socialization Model (Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999), there should be a beginning,
anticipatory, encounter, assimilation and ending phase. In order to answer the second research
question, instances of how the group followed some of the phases of this model were analyzed
by the researcher:
1.
Beginning Phase: In the phase the group idea is formed by a specific person or
series of persons. In this case, the group idea was formed by the professor of a
graduate communication course.
Talk it out 19
2.
Anticipatory Phase: This phase involves planning group activities and supplying
initial information to group members. The group tasks in this situation were assigned
by the professor and given to the group members for review before their first meeting:
Each group member was given an assignment sheet prior to their first meeting for
reference:
[Group Member F1]: *Reading* So a significant and contemporary problem…
3.
Encounter Phase: This phase denotes when the group first meets and beings to
work together. This group met for the first time and after some initial informationseeking, began to work on the assigned task. The most uncertainty reduction occurred
in this first meeting, primarily through information-seeking and self-disclosure.
4.
Assimilation Phase: In this phase the group has an established culture and there is
a sense of how well the group functions. Assimilation was evident in the final set of
transcripts. Here the group reflected on the task they recently completed, and began to
divide tasks among members for the new assignment. There was an established leader
of the group, [F1], and the culture was starting to be solidified. The group recognized
that they were very task-oriented, and that they should focus on areas that they were
strongest. For example:
[Group Member F1]: I feel like the main thing, we were very task oriented. I feel
like we, you know, created things and tried to stick to deadlines. And moved in
that way…
[Group Member F2]: Mmhm.
5.
Ending Phase: This is the final phase in which group members recognize that the
group projects are complete and there is no longer a need to meet. This phase was not
Talk it out 20
evident in the transcripts and email interactions available. The data available was
from the first task assigned to the group. The group continued to meet after for
subsequent assignments.
Thus, some aspects of socialization began to emerge, but a complete analysis was not possible
because the group continued to meet and participate in tasks after the transcribed meetings were
complete. These transcripts show that socialization can begin to occur in tandem with group
members attempting to reduce uncertainty. Socialization and uncertainty reduction occurs mostly
through information-seeking and self-disclosure.
Discussion
Aspects of Uncertainty Reduction
The uncertainty reduction that occurred in this group happened faster than it likely would
in many other small group situations. The group dynamic may have had a lot to do with how
quickly members acclimated to others in the group. First, there were only three initial members
of the group, and that only increased to four by the end of the task. Thus, no group member could
really become a wallflower and avoid inclusion. Also, though the group had never worked
together on a task before, they each knew one another in some capacity. They were acquainted to
the point that they knew one another by name, and had either seen each other around the
department building or in another class setting. Therefore, the initial “Hi, my name is…” did not
need to occur in this group. This allowed the group members to start working on the task almost
immediately.
Self-disclosure was an interesting facet of this group, in that, very little relational
interaction occurred. Though the group members were familiar with one another from the
Talk it out 21
group’s inception, they did not socialize with one another during the meetings. Emails were also
very formal and task-oriented aside from an occasional “have a good weekend!” message. Only
once in a string of emails from the first project did anyone disclose personal information: “Hi
All, Sorry it’s taken all week for me to reply… I’m finally on ‘vacation’ i.e. not working today to
catch up on school work …” [Group Member F1]. Group member [F3] was almost entirely
task-based. She did not self-disclose personal information other than that she worked in the
department and thus was always in the building. She also did not respond as frequently to email
exchanges like the others unless it was to attach work she had been doing or to agree with
someone else’s suggestions.
Reciprocity decreased quickly in the group, even by the end of the first meeting. Group
roles emerged very quickly, and as such the group leader took over in delegating tasks and
asking questions. Thus, she spoke a majority of the time and offered a good deal of original ideas
that other group members responded to. Each group member increased their interactions in the
group, but at different times.
Aspects of Socialization
As noted in the findings, social identity as unable to be measured. Though on a small
scale, group socialization began to emerge in these group interactions. As Anderson, Riddle and
Martin (1999) note, socialization occurs in a group in a series of phases. The group specifically
moved through the anticipatory, encounter and assimilation phases. The ending phase could not
be measured, as the group continued to meet after the first task was completed. Those meetings
were not taped and transcribed for this research.
The following figure illustrates the process of socialization and uncertainty reduction as it
occurred in this group (Heath & Bryant, 1999). The figure is based on the Uncertainty
Talk it out 22
Reduction Model by Heath and Bryant (1999), but has been modified to fit with this particular
group’s interaction.
Initially the group questions one another to gain insights into interests that could relate to
the required task. Next, the group has begun working on the task, and thus a more free flow of
ideas occurs. The initial uncertainty among group members began to fade, and more focus on the
work that needed to be done occurred. Finally, after the first project was complete, the group
reflected on how they handled the task, and how they felt the functioned as a group. They
prepared for the next assignment and set up meeting times and work division via the Internet.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Uncertainty Reduction
Entry Phase
Personal Phase
Exit Phase
Information-seeking /
Questioning
Self-disclosure to find
similarities.
Less formality in
interactions
Free flow of ideas
among group members
Planning future
interactions
Email exchanges
Reflection of tasks
Overall, this research illustrates (albeit on a diminutive scale) that when uncertainty is
reduced quickly, a small group has opportunity to work more efficiently, and complete tasks with
little to no task-hindering conflicts. Each of the members of the group noted that they felt the
group experience was successful, and that they were pleased with the outcomes of the tasks they
were assigned.
Limitations and Further Research
This research yields a number of notable limitations, a majority of which involve the lack
of data available for analysis. There were only three fully transcribed tapes, and a small set of
Talk it out 23
email conversations upon which to base the research’s findings. Though the group met several
other times for this particular project, these meetings were not recorded. Also, the researcher was
not able to observe the interactions in person, and as such, there was no way to measure
nonverbal immediacy or warmth.
Another limitation was the lack of initial relational interaction. The group was very much
task-oriented, and thus jumped directly into the project they were working on. Very little outside
conversation occurred which reduced any findings for the self-disclosure, similarity and liking
axioms. Also, the group was not a naturally formed group. The group was required to fulfill a
series of graduate course assignments in an educational setting.
Further research should be conducted on small groups. Most individuals will be a part of
a small group at some point in their lives, whether it is in an organizational setting, or socially.
Thus, how we interact and behave in groups is important. Also, as this study suggests, how we
diminish uncertainty, is important to the integrity of a group and how efficiently it operates.
Studies should include a larger data set, and a wider variety of data types. This research only had
access to typed transcripts, audio recordings of the interactions, and email conversations. Video
of the group meetings, or the ability to sit in on them personally would have enriched the data.
This group was unusually small, with only three initial members, and a fourth joining
after the first meeting. Typically, a small group consists of a range of seven to twelve members.
Being that this group was so small, it was difficult to see different personality types emerge, as
they would in a larger group. No group member could avoid inclusion, so perhaps those
members that are generally introverted were forced to speak up and contribute. A study with a
larger sample size would be helpful. Also considering the group size and the amount of data
available, none of the data is generalizable.
Talk it out 24
Talk it out 25
References
Abrams, D., Hogg, M., Hinkle, S., & Otten, S. (2005). The social identity perspective on small
groups. In Poole, M.S. & Hollingshead, A. (pp. 99-137). Theories of Small Groups:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Allport, F. & Allport, G. (1921). Personality traits: Their classification and measurement. The
Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 16, 6-40.
Anderson, C., Riddle, B., & Martin, M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. In Frey, J.,
Gouran, D., & Poole, M. S. The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research,
(pp. 139-163). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Asendorpf, J. & van Aken, M. (1994). Traits and relationship status: Stranger versus peer group
inhibition and test intelligence versus peer group competence as early predictors of later
self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 1786-1798.
Ashforth, B. & Saks, A. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustments. The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149-178.
Berger, C. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development
of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social
psychology (pp.122-144). Oxford: Blackwell.
Berger, C. & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward
a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Theory,
1, 99-112.
Boeree, G. (1998). Qualitative methods workbook. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/
Talk it out 26
Brewer, M. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology.
Political Psychology, 22, 115-125.
Clatterbuck, G. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human
Communication Research, 5, 147-157.
Clausen, J. (1968). Socialization and Society, Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Douglas, W. (1990). Uncertainty, information-seeking, and liking during initial interaction.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 66-81.
Douglas, W. (1994). The acquaintanceship process: An examination of uncertainty, informationseeking, and social attraction during initial conversation. Communication Research, 21,
154-176.
Falcione, R. & Wilson, C. (1988). Socialization process in organizations. In G. Goldhaber & G.
Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fiske, D. (1994). Two cheers for the big five! Psychological Inquiry, 5, 123-124.
Frey, L. (1994). Introduction: Revitalizing the study of small group communication.
Communication Studies, 45, 1-6.
Haslett, B. & Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make? In
Frey, J., Gouran, D., & Poole, M. S. The Handbook of Group Communication Theory &
Research, (pp. 115-138). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity
theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127-156.
Talk it out 27
Jackson, J. & Smith, E. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence
for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
120-135.
Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. The Academy of management Journal, 29, 262-279.
Lovaglia, M., Mannix, E., Samuelson, C., Sell, J., & Wilson, R. (2005). Conflict, power, and
status in groups. In Poole, M.S. & Hollingshead, A. (pp. 139-184). Theories of Small
Groups: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook
for Researching Online, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McCrae, R. (2004). Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of Research in
Personality, 38, 3-14.
Neuliep, J. & Grohskopf, E. (2000). Uncertainty reduction and communication satisfaction
during initial interaction: An initial test and replication of a new axiom. Communication
Reports, 13, 67-77.
Pervin, L. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103-113.
Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political
Psychology, 25, 921-945.
Reichers, A. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. The Academy
of Management Review, 12, 278-287.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Talk it out 28
Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interaction: A reformulation of
uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13, 3-33.
Tellegen, A. & Waller, N. (1994). Exploring personality through test construction: Development
of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. In S. R . Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.),
Personality measures: Development and evaluation, (Vol. 1). Greenwich: JAI.
Thoms, P., Moore, K. & Scott, K. (1996). The relationship between self-efficacy for
participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 349-362.
von Eckartsberg, R. (1998a). Introducing existential-phenomenological psychology. In R. Valle
(Ed.), Phenomenological inquiry in psychology (pp. 3-20). New York: Plenum.
Waller, N. & Zavala, J. (1993). Evaluating the big five. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 131-134.