5 Subjective Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Hogg & Abrams (1993)

Lets think back to the Prosaic University example in the videos found on the “Social Identity Page”. You arrive at the PU campus and are heading to a party (this is after we have developed a safe and effective COVID vaccination). You only know one person there – your friend who invited you. When you arrive at the party, you discover that your friend is not there yet and you know no one else. You see several groups of people (all of whom you do not know). One group of people is wearing “PU” hoodies; one group of people is wearing “UV” hoodies; a third group of people are wearing t-shirts with band logos (you don’t know any of the bands – they are super obscure); and a fourth group of people are dressed all in black. Which group of people are you most likely to go and hang out with? It is most likely that you will go and start chatting to the people with the PU hoodies on. That is because you are in a situation that promotes uncertainty.

Hogg and Abrams (1994) contend that uncertain situations lead to a reduction in (a) control over the situation, (b) one’s confidence, (c) meaning (why did I come to this party – gah!) while promoting (d) mistrust and (e) paranoia. What do you do in uncertain situations? We try (i.e., are motivated) to reduce the uncertainty. Identifying with a social group provides us with clear, normative scripts for behaviour-it reduces uncertainty. As such, the motivational process behind group identity for this theory is driven by the need for certainty.

Given the uncertainty reduction is a positive thing, the group with which one identifies (and that subsequently provides the reduction in uncertainty) is seen in a positive light. Outgroups tend to increase uncertainty. And so ingroup bias reflects the perceived difference between the positively valenced ingroup versus the negatively valenced outgroup.

Experimental Evidence

Come to class for some experimental evidence that supports subjective uncertainty reduction theory!