User talk:LangCar

Hey Langford, my name is Jack and I'm a student studying at the university of Hull in England.

I noticed that you had worked on the Uncertainty reduction theory page at the end of last year. I was wondering if you had encountered any specific elements of the page that needed changing or further information added which you hadn't done yourself? As for a class project I have been given the job of amending and improving the page where possible.

JPeachman (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Langford! Ok, so in reading this Wikipedia page, I noticed some areas that could potentially use some clean-up.

1. The opening description seems wordy and not written for a beginner. See, currently it’s taking four sentences to get into what the theory actually says.

2. In the stages section, the entry stage isn’t telling me anything useful. It links to “behavior” and “norm” separately, which a) I wouldn’t take the time to click on and b) undermines the point of linking by having two referents for that concept. Some examples here would have helped me understand what this meant!

3. That last sentence in the stages section has several issues. Who are Dainton and Brook? I mean, I get it from context, but it’s very oddly set up. And the sentence itself is referring to some relatively complicated statistical relationships that aren’t clear to the lay reader.

4. Same thing with axioms and theorems… I get having them here, but the te relationships don’t mean much if you haven’t had stats or done research, especially in the social sciences.

5. In contemporary use -- “fortitude”?!!! How about heuristic value?!

6. I bet Computer-Mediated communication examples could have a TON more than the two listed (although the two listed are pretty great).

7. Critique: good start, could be better explained!

8. Cancer research example doesn’t illustrate a point very clearly

9. Some overall formatting too, like random spaces and it should be “Heading heading heading” not “Heading Heading Heading”

Any questions, please do't hesitate to ask! Go get em Langford! :) Pjk76 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Langford!

-I think that the order in your wikipedia page should be modified. Axioms should be located first than the rest of the content.
-I agree with Pam. The introduction has a lot of information. It will be better if you consider the strategies to cope with uncertainty as a sub-theme. The introduction mentions them but I think this section deserves a bigger development and maybe mention the two types of passive strategies: Reactivity searching and disinhibition searching.
-You can create a new section to talk about the theory in Developed relationships a little better.
- I like that the wikipedia page says something about computer- mediated communication. This is something that our book does not take into account. However, it will be good to see its application in developed relationships as well.
-Our book mentions the importance of context in online relationships. I think you can incorporate this concept in the computer-mediated communication section.
-I think you can find more information about the use of the theory and add more examples.
-It will be a good idea to change the order of the defense and critique sections. I think all the concepts should be developed first and leave this two sections to the end.

See you next tuesday in class :)

Gjd31 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)gjd31Gjd31 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Langford! It's Aena.

It seems that many of the problems in the article were already addressed well by others. So, I’d just like to mention few things they didn’t point out last time. First, I notice that the article does not provide any historical background of the theory, things like what theories it has been expanded from. You might want to look for other theories on interpersonal communications which seem to be related to the UCT. I’d suggest you begin with looking for definitions of ‘Uncertainty’. You can look for the theorists who provide the definitions and how they contributed to development of the UCT. For example, you can Iook at the information theory of Shannon and Weaver, who proposed that that uncertainty existed in a given situation when there was a high amount of possible alternatives and the probability of their event was relatively equal. Shannon and Weaver related their view of uncertainty to the transmission of messages, but I think that their work somewhat contributed to the development of URT. Also, you might want to mention the book by Berger and Calabrese, “Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication”. Lastly, you might consider including more recent information in the Critique section. I read from somewhere that Canary and Dainton said that the applicability of URT may not hold to multiple cultures; you might want to look for more about them. I wish you good luck on this Wiki project! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac1370 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Langford!

I really like uncertainty reduction theory, so I am guessing you are enjoying researching about it. In the existing page I thought the axioms and the table should probably be reduced or erased, instead of the table used in it I would suggest in replacing it with something more easier to relate for the audience such as the one used on the 'media richness theory' page. One of the sources that you might might find interesting is: Riordan, Christine, and Caren B Goldberg. "Does social identity theory underlie relational demography: a test of the of the moderating effects of uncertainty reduction and status enhancement on similar effects." Human relations. 63.7 n. page. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. This might help in adding a new section to your page, this article relates uncertainty reduction theory to 'race similarity' and 'cohesiveness.' While trying to make additions to your page I suggest developing the critique section more, also you can add more applications to the section of 'Anxiety Management Theory'. I agree witH Aena that relating other theories such as interpersonal communications with uncertainty reduction theory might be a good idea. This is another article that I found: Kramer, Michael, W. "Motivation to reduce uncertainty: A reconceptualization of Uncertainty Reduction Theory." Management Communication Quaterly. 13.2 (1999): n. page. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. This article looks at 'organizational communication' in relation to uncertainty reduction theory. I think having examples for the section on 'Stages of Relational Development' might be a good idea.I think the introduction can be developed further and instead of the axioms maybe you can have a section on the background of the theory.

Saniyachitale (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Saniya[reply]

Hi Langford,

Please feel free to send me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns regarding Wikipedia. Have a great day! Fuerst.emily (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2 JLR

Langford,

I really don't see many changes that need to be made to your page after an initial glance over. I would mainly suggest finding more examples of Contemporary Use and see if there are any other examples of the Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory. It seems like the cancer research example may be just skimming the surface. Also, the critique section seems very brief, so I would suggest adding some additional sources or expounding on the critiques already listed. The Defense section should also fall under the critique section and could use a little more detail. Sorry if this isn't very much information or helpful, but I think ultimately the page is pretty good the way it is. I especially like the intro because when I usually look for information on Wikipedia I am looking for a quick explanation/definition. Jr1429 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]