Predicted Outcome Value Theory
General Purpose:
The general purpose of the Predicted Outcome Value Theory is to determine what happens in initial meetings and to explain why people attempt to reduce uncertainty.
Specific Purpose:
The theory states that people initially reduce uncertainty in order to figure out how we feel about another person or an interaction.
Key terms, concepts, and definitions:
In the first minutes of an interaction, people are motivated to seek knowledge and establish how they feel about their conversational partner. After this knowledge is obtained, people are not motivated to seek more. Once the uncertainty is reduced and the person is known, then the communicator uses outcome values in future interactions with the person. Outcome values are what explain information seeking; is communication with the person rewarding? As the outcome value increases, communication is more rewarding. As the outcome value decreases the communication is less rewarding.
What does the theory do?
This theory is one extension of uncertainty reduction theory. The theory says that people do not seek information to increase knowledge, but because they perceive value in another person.
Where can it be applied?
Predicted outcome value theory is similar to uncertainty reduction theory, but instead of reducing uncertainty, the focus in initial conversations is on the predicted outcome value. As people attempt to reduce uncertainty, they also want to discover the possible outcomes and values of the relationship.
Summary source:
Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome values: Just now and then? Human Communication
Research, 13(1), 39-40.
Exemplar article:
Ramirez, A., Sunnafrank, M., and Goei, R. (2010). Predicted outcome value theory in ongoing
relationships. Communication Monographs, 77(1), 27-50. doi: 10.1080/03637750903514276
Young, S., Kelsey, D. & Lancaster, A. (2011). Predicted outcome value of e-mail
communication: Factors that foster professional relational development between students and teachers. Communication Education, 60(4), 371-388. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2011.563388
The general purpose of the Predicted Outcome Value Theory is to determine what happens in initial meetings and to explain why people attempt to reduce uncertainty.
Specific Purpose:
The theory states that people initially reduce uncertainty in order to figure out how we feel about another person or an interaction.
Key terms, concepts, and definitions:
In the first minutes of an interaction, people are motivated to seek knowledge and establish how they feel about their conversational partner. After this knowledge is obtained, people are not motivated to seek more. Once the uncertainty is reduced and the person is known, then the communicator uses outcome values in future interactions with the person. Outcome values are what explain information seeking; is communication with the person rewarding? As the outcome value increases, communication is more rewarding. As the outcome value decreases the communication is less rewarding.
What does the theory do?
This theory is one extension of uncertainty reduction theory. The theory says that people do not seek information to increase knowledge, but because they perceive value in another person.
Where can it be applied?
Predicted outcome value theory is similar to uncertainty reduction theory, but instead of reducing uncertainty, the focus in initial conversations is on the predicted outcome value. As people attempt to reduce uncertainty, they also want to discover the possible outcomes and values of the relationship.
Summary source:
Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome values: Just now and then? Human Communication
Research, 13(1), 39-40.
Exemplar article:
Ramirez, A., Sunnafrank, M., and Goei, R. (2010). Predicted outcome value theory in ongoing
relationships. Communication Monographs, 77(1), 27-50. doi: 10.1080/03637750903514276
Young, S., Kelsey, D. & Lancaster, A. (2011). Predicted outcome value of e-mail
communication: Factors that foster professional relational development between students and teachers. Communication Education, 60(4), 371-388. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2011.563388