1

2
 Uncertainty Reduction
Theory

Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) or Initial Interaction Theory was originated in 1975 by Charles
Berger and Richard Calabrese. This theory explains how communication is used to reduce uncertainties be-
tween strangers engaging in their first conversation together. Whenever strangers first meet, they are primari-
ly concerned with making an effort to make sense out of their communication experience.

People are naïve researchers who are motivated to predict – to forecast one’s behavioral options, and
to explain – to interpret meanings of behavioral choices, what goes on in initial encounters. Uncertainty exists
when the amount of possible alternatives are mostly positive to happen. Through communication, the uncer-
tainty of a person from others can be reduced that will lead to the development of interpersonal relation-
ships.

There are two types of uncertainty in initial encounters: cognitive uncertainty pertains to the degree
of uncertainty associated with beliefs and attitudes while behavioral uncertainty refers to the behavioral pre-
diction in a given situation.

Berger and Calabrese argued how uncertainty reduction has two processes – proactive and retroac-
tive. Proactive process happens when a person thinks about communication options before actually talking
with another person. On the other hand, retroactive process takes palace after the conversation explaining
one’s behavior.

Moreover, uncertainty is related to seven other concepts related in communication and relational de-
velopment such as verbal output, nonverbal warmth (pleasant vocal tone), information seeking, self-
disclosure (revealing private information about oneself) and reciprocity, similarity and liking.

Assumptions of URT

 People experience uncertainty in interpersonal settings . As what Berger and Calabrese stated,
when people are unable to make sense out of their environment, they usually become anxious.

 Uncertainty is an aversive state. It takes a big deal of emotional and psychological energy to re-
main uncertain.

 Whenever strangers meet, they focuses on two important concerns: reducing uncertainty and
increasing predictability. In dealing with these concerns, information seeking is used to gain more pre-
dictability.

3
  Interpersonal communication is a process involving developmental stages. According to Berger
and Calabrese, most people started an interaction in an entry phase, the beginning stage of an interac-
tion. Then personal phase comes in, where people start to communicate spontaneously and reveal
more information about oneself. Lastly, the exit phase, refers to the stage where individuals make deci-
sions whether they want to talk with the other in the future.
 Interpersonal communication is the primary means of uncertainty reduction. Communication
between people is the foundation to reduce uncertainty.
 The quantity and nature of information that people share change through time. Theorists believe
that initial interactions are key elements in the developmental process of interpersonal communica-
tion.
 People’s behavior can be predicted in a law like fashion. Human behavior is regulated by gener-
alizable principles that function in a law like manner.

Axioms of URT

Uncertainty Reduction Theory is an axiomatic theory. URT began with a collection of axioms, true
statements from past research and common sense. It requires no further proof than the statement itself.

Axiom 1: Verbal communication between strangers increas-

es when uncertainty level decreases.

Axiom 2: As nonverbal affiliative expressiveness increases,

the level of uncertainty decreases.

Axiom 3: Through high level of uncertainty, information

seeking behavior increases.

Axiom 4: Due to high level of uncertainty in a relationship,

intimacy level decreases.

Axiom 5: High levels of uncertainty produce high rates of

reciprocity.

Axiom 6: Similarities between people reduces uncertainty.

Axiom 7: increase level of uncertainty leads to decrease in

liking.

Expansion of URT

Berger and some of his colleagues continue to expand and modify the theory, taking into account research
findings.

Axiom 8: Uncertainty is negatively related to interaction with social networks.

Axiom 9: There is an inverse relationship between uncertainty and communication satisfaction.

4
Antecedent Conditions

According to Berger (1979), there are three antecedent conditions when seeking reduction of uncer-
tainty. First, when one person has the potential to get reward or be punish. Second, when the other person
behaves contrary to expectations. Third, when a person expects future interaction with another.

Strategies

Berger (1995) said that in order for people to reduce uncertainty, they use three strategies: passive,
active, and interactive. Each strategy aims to acquire information.

Passive strategies pertains to an individual just observing the other person. Active strategies are more
of asking a third party about the other person’s information. Lastly, interactive strategies occur when the ob-
server engages a direct contact or face-to-face interaction with the other person.

Meanwhile, Tara Emmers and Dan Canary (1996) argued that in an established relationship, there’s an
additional strategy called “uncertainty acceptance” where a person trust his/her partner even with having
uncertainty on some circumstances.

Developed Relationships: Beyond the Initial Encounter

We must not forget that uncertainty doesn’t happen in initial encounters only but a part of one’s de-
veloping relationship with others.

Berger and Calabrese (1975) observed that while uncertainty reduction may be rewarding to some
point, the ability to completely predict one’s behavior might lead to boredom. Some people have a greater
desire to uncertainty when they feel secure than when they feel insecure (Gerald R. Miller and Mark Steinberg,
1975).

When it comes to romantic relationships, we must not assume that once relationship starts uncertain-
ty disappears. Third party networks (family members and friends) can be an important information sources
for a romantic partner. (Malcolm Parks and Mara Adelman, 1983) The more interactions with the third party,
the less uncertainty.

Context

William Gudykunst and Tsukasa Nishida (1986) discovered the difference of low- and high- context
cultures. Low-context cultures refers to the meaning that are found in the explicit code or message. While in
high-context culture, meanings are found through nonverbal messages and the context.

5
6
 Social Penetration
Theory
Social Penetration Theory asserts that, as relationships develop, communication moves on from sim-
ple and superficial thoughts into more intimate and superficial ones. This theory was authored by psycholo-
gists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor in 1973. It was known as an objective theory as opposed to an interpre-
tive theory, meaning that it is based on data drawn from experiments and not from conclusions based off an
individual's personal experiences.

Social Penetration is accomplished by self-disclosure, the purposeful process of revealing information

about one's self. It increases the intimacy in relationships up to a certain point. Social Penetration can hap-
pen in different ways, some being romantic relationships, friendships, social groups (examples being religious
and sports groups), and work relationships. The theory has also been applied to online communication.

The onion model is a useful metaphor for describing how the theory operates, as this theory could be
envisioned as 'peeling off' onion skin, in which as you peel off more of its skin, you get closer and closer to its
core.

In this, 'peeling off' onion skin is analogous to self-disclosure, in which, to get closer to someone, an
individual must disclose personal information. This does not mean that it is instant-- it is simply a cycle of
resting and disclosing. Sometimes, a relationship is open, and sometimes it is private. The theory posits that
these cycles happen throughout life as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relation-
ship.

Stages of Self-Disclosure
Altman and Taylor (1973) had used the analogy of peeling back the layers of an onion, which possess
both breadth and depth. "Breadth" refers to the various facets of a person's life, such as work, family, com-
munity and hobbies. "Depth" refers to the details of these facets. The outer layers of the onion represent su-
perficial information about the person, such as physical appearance and speech. The deeper layers represent
more personal information, such as the person's thoughts and feelings about others. As someone peels back
the outer layers of their partner's self, they get closer to their partner's core nature. Altman and Taylor out-
lined the various stages of intimacy that result from this process of self-disclosure:

7
Orientation Stage
The "first impression" or "small talk" stage. Communicators become acquainted to one another by
observing mannerisms and personal dress. They exchange non-intimate information about themselves.

Exploratory Affection Stage

Communicators begin revealing more about themselves, like their opinions about certain groups and
politics. Deeply personal information aren't shared. Casual friendships develop at this stage. Most relation-
ships stay at this level.

Affective Stage
Communicators begin to disclose personal and private matters to their partners. Personal ways of
speaking, such as using idioms and unconventional language is allowed to come through. Communicators
feel comfortable enough to argue or criticize each other. Romantic relationships develop at this stage.

Stable Stage
Communicators disclose information openly and comfortably. They know how their partner will react
to certain types of information.

Depenetration
Occurs when one or both communicators perceive that the cost of self-disclosure outweighs its benefits. Com-
municators withdraw from self-disclosure, thus ending their relationship. Progress through these stages are usually
linear at first, but may become cyclical later. Psychologists say that intimate relationships can switch stages at differ-
ent times as partners work through their insecurities.

Barriers to self-disclosure
Several factors can affect the amount of self-disclosure between partners: gender, race, religion, per-
sonality, social status and ethnic background. For example, other cultures, like the Japanese, value personal
privacy more than others. Therefore, a Japanese person may not self-disclose as much as a French person.
Partners from different religions may hesitate about sharing their thoughts about their respective faiths, and
men often refrain from expressing deep emotions out of fear of social stigma. Such barriers can slow the rate
of self-disclosure and sometimes even prevent relationships from forming. In theory, the more dissimilar two
people are, the more unlikely self-disclosure becomes.

8
9
 Social Exchange
Theory
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a concept taken from individuals who base their relationships in eco-
nomic terms. They believe that relationships circulate through costs and rewards to determine risks and ben-
efits. People tend to tally up the costs of being in a relationship and compare them to the rewards that are
given by being in that relationship. Cost signifies the elements of relational life that have negative value to a
person, such as the effort put into a relationship and the negatives of a partner. Rewards are the elements of
a relationship that have positive value. Social Exchange Theory (SET) has been called “one major theoretical
perspectives in the field of social psychology” (Cook & Rice, 2003, p. 53).

The Social Exchange perspective argues that people calculate the overall worth of a particular rela-
tionship by subtracting its costs from the rewards it provides (Monge & Contractor, 2003): Worth = Rewards –
Costs. When the rewards are greater than the costs, the worth consist is a positive number which means the
relationship has positive connection. If the costs exceeds the rewards, the worth consist is a negative number
which means the relationship has negative connection.

The basis of social exchange theory goes back to 1958, when American sociologist George Homans
published an article entitled “Social Behavior as Exchange.” Homans devised a framework built on a combi-
nation of behaviorism and basic economics. In the immediate years that followed, other studies expanded
the parameters of Homans’ fundamental concepts. John Thibaut and Harold Kelley are recognized for focus-
ing their studies within the theory on the psychological concepts, the dyad and small group.

Perspective of SET
There are three theorists who defined Social Exchange Theory according to their standpoint. The first
one is John Thibaut and Harold Kelly , “Every individual voluntarily enters and stays in any relationship only
as long as it is adequately satisfactory in terms of his [sic] rewards and costs” (1959, p. 37). The second one is
Ronald Sabatelli and Constance Shehan (1993) note, the Social Exchange approach views relationships
through the metaphor of the marketplace, where each person acts out of a self-oriented goal of profit taking.
While Laura Stafford (2008), stated that economic exchanges and social exchanges have some differences.

Michael Roloff (1981) believes that “the guiding force of interpersonal relationships is the advance-
ment of both parties’ self-interest” (p.14). The context will focus on the Most Popular Theory which is the
Theory of Interdependence also known as Social Exchange Theory proposed by John Thibaut and Harold Kel-
ley.

11
Assumptions of SET
SET is based on a metaphor of economic exchange, many of these assumptions flow from the notion
that people view life as a marketplace. Thibaut and Kelley base their theory into two conceptualizations: one
that focuses on the nature of individuals and one that describes the relationships between two people. They
made use of Drive Reduction principle to further understand relationships between two people

The assumptions that SET makes about human nature include the following:

 Humans seek rewards and avoid punishment.

 Humans are rational beings.

 The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from per
son to person.

The assumptions that SET makes about nature of relationships include the following:

 Relationships are interdependent.

 Relational life is a process.

Evaluation of Relationship: Why we Stay or Go

Another Thibaut and Kelly’s creation in their theory is the explanation behind the evaluation of peo-
ple whether they will stay in them or leave them. Thibaut and Kelley believes that this evaluation rests on two
types of comparisons: comparison level and comparison level for alternatives.

A comparison level (CL) is a set of standard on what an individual thinks he or she can give and re-
ceive in a particular relationship. For instance, Alex is a senior high school student. She has a subjective feel-
ing of what she could give and what she could get from the teacher. Her CL has been shaped by all her past
experiences in her previous school, her friends’ point of view, and even through movies that gave her an idea
of what is expected from the relationship. On the other hand, the exact opposite of this where people settle
for the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative
relationships or being alone” (Roloff, 1981, p. 48) is what you call comparison level for alternatives (CLalt).

For example, if we evaluate Denise

(who is leaving the country for her dream) and
Luis relationship for 8 years using CL and
CLalt, we can say that it is 9 out of 10. The 9
would be Denise’s outcome score but if her CL
is only 7, then Denise must be satisfied be-
cause it exceeds her expectations. If Denise
thinks that being alone now as she leaves the
country she would rate it as 4. Then her CLalt
will be low. If we calculate it based on the ta-
ble 11.1, Denise’s outcome, 9 is greater than her CL (7), and her CL is greater than her CLalt, which is 4. This
outcome fits perfectly in the first example. Therefore her relationship with Luis is satisfying and stable.

11
 This computation shows why some people remain in relationships that are abusive. If people see no
alternative and fear being alone more than being in a relationship, Social Exchange Theory predicts they will
stay.

Exchange Patterns: SET in Action

Thibaut and Kelley believe that people are engage in behavioral sequences designed to achieve their
goal. When people engage in these behavioral sequences they are dependent to some extent on their rela-
tional pattern.

Power is the degree of dependence a person has on another for outcomes. For example, Rei will play
cards then probably she will be needing participation from others in order to play the game.

There are two types of power in Thibaut and Kelley’s theory: fate control and behavioral control. Fate
control is the ability to affect a partner’s outcome. For instance, Rei is choosing between two dresses then
Nathalie chose the red one because it fits perfectly to her light skin. In that way, Nathalie was able to affect
Rei’s choice. Behavioral control is the power to change another’s behavior. For example, Rei stopped talking
when she noticed Nathalie being silent all the time. Probably, Rei would question Nathalie if there’s a prob-
lem or she will stay silent as well.

According to Thibaut and Kelley, people develop patterns of exchange to cope with power differen-
tials and to deal with the costs associated with exercising power. Having said that, Thibaut and Kelley de-
scribe three different matrices in social exchange to showcase the patterns people develop.

The first one is Given Matrix also known as the hand you are dealt. This pertains to behavioral choices
and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors (the environment) and internal fac-
tors (the specific skills each interactant possesses). Denise’s and Luis’ distance are part of the environment
that’s keeping their relationship challenging.

The second one is Effective Matrix. This is the transformations you are able to make to your given ma-
trix, by learning a new skill, for example. In Denise and Luis case, they can engage through phone/video calls
and even travel miles whenever they are free just to be with each other.

The third one is Dispositional Matrix. This represents the beliefs that you have about your relation-
ships. If Denise and Luis think that couples must stick together no matter distance separate them that will
affect their dispositional matrix.

12
Exchange Structures

These include direct exchange, generalized exchange, and productive exchange.

In Direct exchange, two people reciprocate the costs and rewards. For ex-
ample, Luis treats Denise for lunch. The other day, Denise treats Luis for dinner. It
is not necessarily to reciprocate immediately as long as both person offer time
and effort to their partner.

In Generalized exchange, reciprocation involves the social network and

isn’t confined to two individuals. For example, a family was relocating because
they lose their home. Their neighbors extend help by offering food, clothes, and
water. Since the family went away they cannot extend help for those people in
need there. Therefore the reciprocation will be accomplish to someone else.

Lastly, Produce exchange. An exchange where both partners incur costs

and benefits simultaneously. If Rei and Nathalie work together as a hosts for an
event, they engage in productive exchange. Both of them perform their parts, and
they both share equally a bonus of their works.

13
14
 Relational Dialectics
Theory
Relational dialectics theory or RDT is a communication theory introduced by Leslie Baxter and Barba-
ra Montgomery back in 1996 when it was published and distributed to the world. According to Baxter, the
Relational Dialectics Theory focuses on the interplay of differences and how they are often oppositional and
competing. RDT revolves around the contradictions that happen within a relationship and the problems that
may show up when two different people maintain a relationship which is, according to Baxter, the reason why
a relationship grows and matures with time. This theory may be complex but once you’ve understood the
point of the theory, you will know that it represents the way we communicate with other people.

It all started when Leslie Baxter was challenged by his professor to look for opposites in all aspects
back in 1975 and found great interest in opposites within relationship so she started to study its features and
factors. Baxter was unsatisfied with what she has acquired from the study but was enlightened when she
found the study of Mikhail Bakhtin 10 years after and has helped her have a deeper understanding of what she
has learned in the opposites within a relationship. With this knowledge, Baxter teamed up with Barbara Mont-
gomery on the year 1992 to create a book that talks about the Relational Dialectics Theory, which was then
published in 1996, 4 years after it was made by Baxter and Montgomery.

Assumptions of RDT

RDT has four main assumptions that explains how this theory is connected to how we com-
municate in real life and these are:

 Relationships are not linear.

This is the most significant assumption in the relational dialectics theory because in RDT,
relationships do not exist in a linear way as it always changes in time. Relationships, accord-
ing to RDT is the continuous alternation of contradictory desires between two people
wherein complexity in a relationship, is viewed as an alternative to progress.

 Relational life is characterized by change.

This assumption of RDT states that relationships are inevitable to change. Baxter and Mont-
gomery have observed that qualitative and quantitative movement will always be present
within a relationship.

15
  Contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life.

The third assumption of Relational Dialectics Theory implies that oppositions and differ-
ences within two people will never be absent and will not cease to provide tension between
the two individuals. It simply states how tension is always present in relationships and that
people has different ways of handling it.

 Communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational contradictions.

Finally, the last assumption is focused on communication and how it is important in a rela-
tionship. According to Baxter and Montgomery, “-the social reality of contradictions is pro-
duced and reproduced by the communicative action of social actors.” This theory informs
us that whatever we say to an individual would impact future circumstances according to
how we have planned our communicative action.

The Subtopics of RDT

THE APPROACH

Relational Dialectics Theory can be best defined through comparing it with the monologic and dualis-
tic approach.

Monologic approach is the thinking that once you move towards another conclusion/extreme, you will
leave the other belief that you have which is represented in the figure above.

Dualistic Approach, on the other hand, is seeing the contradictions as two different things without rela-
tion to each other (as seen on the figure above).

Lastly, the Dialectic Approach is having multiple extremes out of each contradiction. Baxter and Mont-
gomery described Dialectical thinking as something that is focused in a messier, less logical and inconsistent
practices which is clearly shown on the figure above.

16
Elements of Dialectics

These elements are the basics aspects of dialectical perspective:

Totality

It explains the interdependency of the people in a relationship. It states that whenever something hap-
pens to one member of the relationship, the other one will be affected as well. It can also be applied to the
social and cultural contexts of those who are in a relationship and how these factors affect each one of them.

Contradiction

This element is the center of the dialectic approach. It also refers to the oppositions that an individual
in a relationship faces and must choose between two elements that contradict each other.

Motion

Is simply focused on the process that is happening within a relationship and would be the best descrip-
tion of how the relationship has changed over time.

Praxis

This element explains that we are all choice makers despite being constrained by past choices, choices
of other people, and cultural and social conditions, we are still aware that we can make a choice for our-
selves.

Basic Relational Dialectics

Interactional Dialectics are the tension made through communication of people within a relationship:

1. Autonomy and Connection – this tension refers to the feeling of wanting to be close to your partner
and being separated from them.

2. Openness and Protection – The second tension portrays the conflict happening between two peo-
ple in a relationship who wants to be open and expressive towards their partners while also wanting to
be invulnerable and closed to them.

3. Novelty and Predictability – Finally, the last conflict talks about the struggles of individuals in a
relationship to be certain and uncertain of what they do. This conflict is the oscillation of knowing what
to do and being spontaneous in a relationship.

Contextual Dialectics are formed through the place of relationship within the culture:

1. Public and Private Dialectic – is a dialectic that contrasts the public and private aspects of a re-
lationship.

17
 2. Real and Ideal Dialectic – This contextual dialectic is the result of comparing the reality of rela-
tionships from a fantasized relationship.

Response to Dialectics

Cyclic Alternation – Choosing different poles for different times. Refers to the changes happening over
time.

Segmentation – Choosing different poles for different context. Refers to the changes happening due to con-
text,

Selection – Choosing one pole and pretending that the other one does not exist. Refers to the prioritization
of oppositions.

Integration – is the process of synthesizing the oppositions in dialectic tensions. This response is com-
posed of three sub strategies:

Neutralizing – choosing where to settle in an opposition.

Disqualifying – Involves the exemption of certain matters from the things that you share
generally.

Reframing – is the transformation of the oppositions so it would not contradict each oth-
er again.

Managing Relational Dialectics

Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery have suggested these eight methods for individuals to control
and manage dialectics in their relationship:

Denial – Is the process of ignoring the other side of the tension while being responsive to the other ten-
sion.

Disorientation – Is the act of managing relational Dialectics by ending the relationship to escape the
tension.

Reaffirmation – Is the way of accepting the tension that is happening in a relationship and believing
that it is normal and beneficial for both individuals to undergo tension.

Integration – Is the integration of all tensions that is happening in an individual’s life and procuring
solutions that would solve all tensions at once. This type of dialectic management may be hard but is
useful in solving tensions.

Recalibration – Is the process of reframing the tension in a way that it is no longer an opposition in a
relationship.

Segmentation – Segmentation is the method of dealing with one tension at a time. It can be crucial for
an individual to solve all tension that is currently happening in a relationship but through segmenta-
tion, all tensions will be noticed and would have an action to eliminate them.

18
Alternation – Alternation happens when two individuals in a relationship alternately gives attention to
each of their tensions.

Balance – Partners in this method maintains a balance between the situations that they are in while par-
tially responding to different tensions that affects the relationship.

19
21
 Communication Privacy
Management Theory
Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM) is a practical theory introduced by Sandra Petronio
to explain the “everyday” issues of a person. It argues that disclosure is the process that people use to man-
age the relationship between concealing and revealing private information. This explains how individuals be-
lieve they own their private information and have the rights to control it. In CPM, the metaphor of privacy
boundary is used to illustrate where private information is located and how the boundary expands to give
way to multiple owners of a private information. An individual can disclose not only their own information but
also information that belongs to other people. A unique feature of this theory is that rather than being law-
based, it is a rule-based theory instead.

The basis of CPM Theory started over 20 years ago. The initial theory had limited boundaries where it
was focused only to privacy management within a marital dyad. It was referred by Petronio as a microtheory,
a theory with limited boundaries. Later, the theory has its change in name. In 1991, Petronio called the theory
“Communication Boundary Management”. When she published the fuller statement of the theory in her book
in 2002, she renamed it “Communication Privacy Management Theory”. The name change emphasizes that
the main idea of the theory is on private disclosures. Now, she refers to CPM Theory as a macrotheory (a theo-
ry with extensive boundaries) because its boundaries have a wide variation of interpersonal relationships,
unlike the initial theory.

Assumptions of CPM

CPM Theory is rooted in assumptions about how individuals believe that they own their private infor-
mation and assumptions about the nature of human beings regarding on how they think and communicate.
The theory makes five assumptions about human nature:

 Humans are choice makers.

 Humans are rule makers and rule followers.

 Humans’ choices and rules are based on a consideration of others as well as the self.

 Relational life is characterized by change.

 Contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life.

21
 According to Petronio (2010), an individual makes choices and rules about what to share to others based
on a “mental calculus” which makes up of a criteria such as culture, gender, and context, among other things.
These assumptions represents an active perception of an individual and an image of a person engaged in re-
lational life wherein other people gets involve as well when the assumptions are taken together.

Suppositions of CPM

Communication Privacy Management Theory is concerned with explaining an individual’s negotiation

processes regarding keeping or disclosing a private information. When shared to other people, it becomes
private disclosure. Thus, CPM focuses on private disclosures rather than self-disclosures. This emphasis away
from self-disclosure proves that CPM does not restrict the process to only the self, rather it’s privacy manage-
ment system extends to embrace multiple levels of disclosure which involves self and group to identify ways
privacy boundaries are coordinated between and among people.

To fully accomplish this goal, Communication Privacy Management Theory proposes five suppositions:
private information, private boundaries, control and ownership, rule-based management system, and man-
agement dialectics.

Private Information

The first supposition is private information. This supposition is about information that matter deeply to an indi-
vidual. It is the message which a person either keeps to themselves or disclose it to other people.

Private boundaries

The second supposition is called private boundaries which means distinguishing an information if it is private or
public. In CPM, boundary metaphor is used to make the point that there is a line between being public and being private.
On one side of the boundary, an individual keep private information for themselves while on the other side, an individual
reveal some private information to other people who they feel confide in. When a private information is shared to anoth-
er person, the boundary around it is called collective boundary. When the private information remains to an individual
and is not disclosed, the boundary is called personal boundary.

22
 Boundaries have variations as well. It may be relatively permeable (easy to cross) or relatively impreg-
nable (rigid and difficult to cross). Boundaries can also change as an individual gets older. The boundaries
increase as a child grow into adolescence and adulthood where they grow a more developed sense of privacy.
As an individual gets older, their boundaries begin to shrink. An example of that are elderly being dependent
on caregivers with their daily routines which causes their boundary to lessen.

Control and ownership

The third supposition relates to control and ownership. This supposition relies to the idea that an indi-
vidual feel they own a private information to themselves. As owners of this information, they believe that they
are in a position where they should control who else would be allowed to gain access to it.

Rule-based management system

The fourth supposition is called rule-based management system. This system is used for understanding
the decisions an individual make about private information. With this supposition, an individual can manage
their decisions through these three processes of rule-based management system: privacy rule characteristics,
boundary coordination, and boundary turbulence. Since there are a lot of sub-processes that are involved in
each of these three, we will discuss them in a separate section.

Management dialects

The last supposition of CPM Theory is management dialectics where it focuses between present ten-
sions for revealing private information and concealing it. This supposition focuses on the tensions of bounda-
ries that people encounter due to opposites and contradictions. An example of this is when a student, who
has a lot of schoolwork to do, suddenly bumps into someone he/she knows that went away years ago. They
engage into a conversation of catching up through the years of not having the chance to talk to one another.
The tension present in this scenario is that the student enjoys the company of an old friend yet he/she needs
to do the school works and disclosing is taking away time to work on it.

23
Privacy Rule Management Processes

The fourth supposition of the CPM Theory, rule-based management system, has three privacy rule man-
agement processes: privacy rule characteristics, boundary coordination, and boundary turbulence.

Privacy Rule Characteristics

This process describes the nature of privacy rules. It has two main features: attribute and development
Rule attributes refers to how an individual obtain privacy rules and understand the properties of those
rules. An example of this is a person’s disclosure in family gatherings versus on an office’s event at work. With
the CPM Theory, it depicts that an individual will set up rules that are fitted on both events for managing pri-
vacy that are learned over time.

. Rule development describes how rules come to be decided. In CPM Theory, it states that five deci-
sion criteria are used to guide negotiation about sharing private information: cultural, gendered, motivation-
al, contextual, and risk-benefit ratio. According to Petronio (2017), this was key in the CPM Theory because
privacy rules are a foundational principle.

Cultural criteria deals with the norms for privacy and openness in a given culture. An individual’s

own expectation for privacy are guided by the values they learn in their culture. Gendered criteria refers

to the differences present between men and women upon drawing privacy boundaries. Motivational cri-

teria involves how people make decisions about disclosing private information based on their motivations.
Either it is motives of control, manipulation, attraction, and power for disclosing or concealing a private infor-
mation.

In contextual criteria, it pertains to the experiences an individual faced which affects their decision
-making. In this criteria, it discusses two elements: social environment and physical setting. The social envi-
ronment includes special circumstances an individual faced which have affected their decision to have disclo-
sure or not to disclose. Lastly, rules are developed based on the risk-benefit ratio criteria. This where
an individual evaluate risks that will benefit him/her if he/she decides to disclose or keep it private.

24
Boundary Coordination

The second process under the rule-based management system which describes how an individual man-
age private information by the individual’s boundaries. This refers that boundaries should be coordinated
through rules to have a smooth transaction of communication and have a viable outcome in relationships.
When a private information is shared, co-owners should coordinate with the original owner’s boundaries of
privacy and disclosure based on boundary permeability, boundary linkage, and boundary ownership.

Boundary permeability refers to having an invisible division around private information to keep it
from being shared to other people. It is knowing how much information should be shared based on an indi-
vidual’s boundaries. When a person decides to keep it to themselves a private information, boundaries are
called thick boundaries; when disclosed, it have thin boundaries.

Boundary linkage is the connections that are built by an individual’s disclosure through a boundary.
An example of this is the relationship between a doctor and a patient. The doctor form linkages with their pa-
tient in such way to give out private information simultaneously within their boundaries.

Lastly, boundary ownership refers to the rights and responsibilities an individual has over to control
the spread of their private information to other people. For boundary ownership to work, rules should be
clearly given. An example of this is conducting a surprise party. All those involved in planning should agree on
how the information regarding the party would be spread so that the surprise would not be ruined.

Boundary Turbulence

This exists when the rules of boundary coordination of an individual are unclear or when their bounda-
ries are not coordinated. It refers to the conflicts about boundary expectations and regulation where an indi-
vidual expects an appropriate response when they share a private information but gets violated or rejected
instead.

25
References

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Bajracharya, S. (2018). Uncertainty reduction theory. Retrieved on August 26, 2019, from http://www.businesstopia.net
Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a development theory of
interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research. Retrieved on August 26, 2019, from https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
James, M. (2016). Uncertainty reduction theory. Retrieved on August 26, 2019, from www.communicationstudies.com
Turner, L., & West, R, (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York, New York: Frank
Mortimer.
Wernecke, C. (2017). Uncertainty reduction theory. Retrieved on August 26, 2019, from http://
www.mastersincommunicationa.com

Social Penetration Theory

Communication Studies. (n.d.). Social penetration theory. Retrieved on August 28, 2019, from https://
communicationstudies.com/communication-theories/social-penetration-theory
Oregon State University. (n.d.). Social penetration theory. Retrieved on August 28, 2019, from https://oregonstate.edu/
instruct/theory/spt.html
Whittemore, J. (n.d.). Social penetration theory: Definition & examples. Retrieved on August 28, 2019, from https://
study.com/academy/lesson/social-penetration-theory-definition-examples.html
Wikipedia. (2019). Social penetration theory. Reatrieved on August 28, 2019, from https://wikipedia.org/wiki/
Social_penetration_theory

Social Exchange Theory

Cherry, Kendra (2019). Understanding Social Exchange Theory in Psychology. Very well mind. Retrieved on August 25,
2019 from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-social-exchange-theory-2795882
Redmond, Mark V. (2015). Social Exchange Theory. Retrieved on August 24, 2019 from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=engl_reports
Turner, L., & West, R, (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York, New York: Frank
Mortimer.
What is Social Exchange Theory (2018). Tulane University School of Social Work. Retrieved on August 26, 2019 from
https://socialwork.tulane.edu/blog/social-exchange-theory

Relational Dialectics Theory

A First Look at Communication Theory. (2014). Leslie Baxter on relational dialectics [video file]. Retrieved on August 25,
2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygLrYk7Aj-Y
Maharjan, p. (2018). Relational dialectics theory. Retrieved on August 25, 2019 from https://www.businesstopia.net/
communication/relational-dialectics-theory
Turner, L., & West, R, (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York, New York: Frank
Mortimer.

26
Communication Privacy Management Theory

Kennedy-Lightsey, Carrie & Martin, Matthew & Thompson, Michelle & Leezer Himes, Kimberly & Zackery
Clingerman, Brooke. (2012). Communication Privacy Management Theory: Exploring Coordination and
Ownership Between Friends. Communication Quarterly. 60. 10.1080/01463373.2012.725004.

Hosek, A. M., & Thompson, (2009). Communication privacy management and college instruction: Exploring
the rules and boundaries that frame instructor private disclosure. Communication Education, 58 (3), p.
327-349

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. (2016). CPM developed glossary of terms. Retrieved on Au-
gust 26, 2019, from https://cpmcenter.iupui.edu/index.php/teach/glossary

Petronio, S. & Durham, W. (2008). Communication privacy management theory: significance for interpersonal
communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communi-
cation: Multiple perspectives (pp. 309-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781483329529.n23

Petronio, S., & Venetis, M. (2017). Communication privacy management theory and health and risk messag-
ing. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Retrieved 19 Aug. 2019, from https://
oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-513.

Turner, L., & West, R, (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York, New
York: Frank Mortimer.

27