This is a user sandbox of Mcthompson5. You can use it for testing or practicing edits.
This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course.
To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section.

Theory of Motivated Information Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to search

Theory of Motivated Information Management or TMIM, is a social-psychological framework that examines the relationship between information management and uncertainty. TMIM has been utilized to describe the management of information regarding challenging, taboo, or sensitive matters.^[1] In regards to interpersonal information seeking, there are numerous routes and methods one can choose to take in order to obtain that information.^[2] TMIM analyzes whether an individual will engage in information seeking within the first place and also asses the role of the information provider. The theory posits that individuals are “motivated to manage their uncertainty levels when they perceive a discrepancy between the level of uncertainty they have about an important issue and the level of uncertainty they want”. "TMIM distinguishes itself from other information-seeking theories in that it does not attribute the motivation of information seeking to a desire for uncertainty reduction; rather, the catalyst of information management in TMIM lies in the discrepancy between actual and desired uncertainty."^[2] In other words, someone may be uncertain about an important issue but decides not to engage or seek information because they are comfortable with that state and, therefore, desire it. People prefer certainty in some situations and uncertainty in other

While still fairly new, TMIM has been incorporated to look at a variety of issues within a variety of contexts.^[3] This ~~psychological theory, like many others~~ theory, although dealing with psychological actions, looks at communicative behavior and is applied in communication, specifically in the subfields of interpersonal and human communication.

Background[edit]

Theory of Motivated Information Management

TMIM was first proposed in 2004 by Walid Afifi and Judith Weiner through their article, “Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management”. "TMIM provides perhaps the most detailed theoretical explication of the information management process that is currently available, including a multifaceted conceptualization of efficacy that incorporates communication efficacy-- an overlooked yet robust predictor of information seeking and provision."^[4] When an individual recognizes a gap between the level of uncertainty they possess and the level of uncertainty they wish to have, the process of uncertainty management is initiated through information management.^[3]

A revision to the theory was put forth by Walid Afifi and Christopher Morse in 2009. A major alteration to the theory revolved around the notion that uncertainty can create emotions other than anxiety such as happiness and encouragement. In 2011, Fowler and Afifi tested the revised TMIM and "studied middle-aged children's pursuit of information about parent's eldercare preferences. That these children reported higher levels of positive emotions (e.g., calmness, happiness, encouragement) than negative emotions in response [validates] W. A. Afifi and Morse's instinct to broaden the range of affective responses relevant to the TMIM."^[1]

TMIM was developed to account for a person’s ‘active’

comprehensive model of information seeking (CMIS) and Bandura's social cognitive theory. The revision also relies on Lazarus' appraisal theory of emotions. TMIM stemmed out of a desire to bring together ideas and address limitations of existing frameworks on uncertainty. More specifically, it emphasizes the role played by efficacy beliefs, explicitly highlights the role played by the information provider in uncertainty management interactions, and improves communication

research about uncertainty management decisions.

~~Definition~~

When deciding whether to seek or avoid information about an issue, TMIM breaks down the process individuals go through into three phases: interpretation, evaluation, and decision. In addition, the theory describes a two-stage process, evaluation and decision, that information providers go through in deciding what, if any, information to provide.

TMIM is a description of a three-phase process that individuals go through in deciding whether to seek or avoid information about an issue and a similar two-stage process that information providers go through in deciding what, if any, information to provide.

TMIM’s three-phase process consists of the interpretation, evaluation, and decision stages and the two-stage process is broken down by examining the role of the information seeker and information provider.

Process for the Information Seeker[edit]

Interpretation Phase

The first phase involves an assessment of uncertainty. According to TMIM, individuals experience uncertainty when they feel that they cannot predict what will happen with a particular issue or in a given situation. The difference between the amount of uncertainty a person has and the amount of uncertainty he or she desires to have about this issue is referred to as uncertainty discrepancy. It serves as the motivation factor for the information seeking process. As such, those working and researching under the TMIM theory and framework believe that, through a complex process, "uncertainty discrepancy indirectly influences information management decisions and behaviors." This particular discrepancy triggers and emotional response and yearning to decide whether to seek information, avoid it, or re-evaluate one'e situation.^[1]

TMIM originally proposed that uncertainty discrepancy caused anxiety due to a persons’ need for a balance between their desired and actual states of uncertainty. The revised version, however, proposes that the discrepancy can create emotions other than anxiety, including shame, guilt or anger, among others. Nevertheless, the emotion felt influences, and is followed by, an evaluation. "Decisions about what information-management strategy to enact are guided not by the desire to reduce uncertainty discrepancy but by the often emotional arousal emerging from the discrepancy."^[4]

Evaluation Phase

The evaluation phase focuses on mediation. It is used to facilitate the effect of the emotion by evaluating the expectations about the outcomes of an information search and the perceived abilities to gain the information sought after. The next phase in the information seeking process is the evaluation phase. Here, possible outcomes regarding the seeking of information as well as the ability for the individual to obtain and cope with that information is appraised.^[2] In other words, the individual weighs whether or not to seek additional information. This involves two general considerations central to most models of human behavior:

Outcome expectancy – individuals assess the pros and cons that come from seeking information about the issue. (Will the expected outcome be positive or negative?) An example of this could be seen in an individual weighing the rewards and/or costs of probing a particular family member about a personal health issue.^[3]
Efficacy assessments – One's emotional response during the interpretation phase and the outcome expectancies influence the efficacy assessment.^[3] Here, individuals decide whether they are able to gather the information needed to manage their uncertainty discrepancy and then actually cope with it. (Will the expected outcome be too much to handle or manageable?)

These two conditions will determine how someone seeks information. According to TMIM, individuals that experience feelings of efficacy are generally able to engage in the behavior or to accomplish the task at hand. ~~Unlike the broad conceptualizations of efficacy recognized by the comprehensive model of information seeking (CMIS),~~ The theory argues three very specific efficacy perceptions that are uniquely relevant to interpersonal communication episodes:

Communication efficacy – An individuals’ perception that they have the communication skills to successfully complete the task at hand.
Coping efficacy – An individuals’ belief that they can or cannot cope with what information they might discover from seeking.
Target efficacy – This type of efficacy consists of two distinct components: target ability and target willingness. Thus, this is based on an individual's perception of the target person’s ability and willingness to provide information that will reduce the uncertainty discrepancy. To clarify, the target person is the person from whom the information is being sought.^[3] The information seeker considers the openness, honesty, and completeness of information shared by the target person.^[4]

The theory argues that outcome expectancy, which is an individual's assessments of the benefits and costs of information seeking, impact their efficacy judgments. However, these assessments have little direct impact on the decision to seek information. In other words, TMIM assigns efficacy as the primary direct predictor of that decision.

The Decision Phase

The decision phase is where individuals decide whether or not, to engage information. TMIM proposes three ways of doing so:

1. Seek Relevant information:

Several studies have found that when individuals decide to seek information relevant to their uncertainty, they usually adopt a communication strategy to do so (such as passive, active, or interactive approaches). TMIM’s image of information managers is consistent with these findings. However, in cases in which individuals determine that seeking information is too costly, anxiety reduction is unlikely, or is otherwise likely to be unproductive, they will likely resort to other strategies. Often times, seeking information directly is considered the most efficient way of retrieving it. However, there are numerous circumstances that lead to less directed methods of obtaining information.^[4]

2. Avoid Relevant information :

Rather than seeking information, individuals may sometimes choose to avoid relevant information. TMIM hypothesizes that individuals are most likely to avoid information if they consider information seeking risky due to the outcome, efficacy beliefs or both. Some individuals would also avoid situations or people who may offer relevant information. This response is referred to as ‘active avoidance’ and essentially, the individual decides that “the reduction of the uncertainty related anxiety is likely to be more damaging than beneficial”.

3.

Cognitive reappraisal

:

According to TMIM, individuals can also reduce the anxiety or emotion that activated the need for uncertainty management by changing their mindset (cognitive alteration). Therefore, the individual reappraises “the perceived level of issue importance, the desired level of uncertainty, of the meaning of uncertainty".

The decision to engage in any of these general information-management strategies is guided by a hedonic heuristic; this is, the strategy chosen is the one that best mitigates the uncomfortable arousal state caused by the discrepancy perceived between the amount of desired information and information presently possessed."^[2] TMIM mainly anticipates "that individuals with positive outcome expectancies (i.e., rewards outweigh costs) and increased efficacy assessments (i.e., they believe they have the communicative ability, can cope with the ramifications, and have someone who can provide the information they seek and will do so honestly) will engage in information seeking. Conversely, individuals with negative outcome expectancies and low efficacy judgements will be more likely to avoid seeking information."^[3] Moreover "those with higher efficacy assessments should exhibit more direct forms of information seeking and less indirect forms of information seeking.^[4]

Process for Information Provider

~~Model of TMIM Predictions~~ TMIM also highlights the role of the target-information provider. The theory asserts that the information provider becomes relevant and crucial in the process upon realizing that the seeker desires information, "prompting the provider to engage in a process of outcome and efficacy evaluations similar to those described for the information seeker " (Dillow, 2014 p.679).^[4] It assesses the impact of how much information the target-provider would give and how they do so. The theory argues that the provider goes through similar evaluation and decision phases as the information seeker. Information providers enter a decision phase and the choices they make there impact the extent to which they will or will not provide information. Considerations of directness in providing said information are also decided upon.^[4] The provider considers the pros and cons of giving the seeker the sought-after information (outcome assessment) and their efficacy to do so. However, the efficacy perceptions are tailored toward the provider:

Communication efficacy – Is the provider confident in their skills to competently provide the information?
Coping efficacy – Can the provider cope with the consequences of providing the information?
Target efficacy – Is the seeker able and willing to manage the provided information?

This assessment helps the provider choose whether to provide information to the seeker or not. During the decision phase, the provider also gets to determine how and in what way to convey the sought-after information. For example, the information provider can decide to respond to a seeker's request face-to-face or by email.

Application

The Theory of Motivated Information Management can and has been applied to numerous environments and contexts. Several studies have successfully tested TMIM. Specifically, the theory has accurately predicted whether people seek sexual health information from their partners (2006), what drives people to talk with their family about organ donation (2006), whether teenagers talk to their divorced or non-divorced parents about the parents’ relationship (2009), and whether adult children talk to their elderly parents about eldercare preferences (2011). In Tokunaga's 2014 study, he displayed support for the application of TMIM in seeking information over the internet.^[2] It was found that the information-seeking strategies in offline contexts are the same factors that motivate individuals in online information-seeking.^[2] Therefore, TMIM once again proves to transcend channels and can be applicable to online information seeking in an interactive of passive manner.^[2] ~~among other issues~~. ~~In all these cases, the theory has provided generally favorable results about its utility to predict individuals' information management decisions, but also experienced some limitations.~~ In addition, TMIM guided Lancaster's 2016 study in examining individuals' information-management strategies in regard to the topic of romantic partners' past relationships.^[5] It was found here that there is a supportive and growing body of literature that claims that a wide range of emotions may result form uncertainty discrepancies and in turn influence information-management decisions made in later stages of TMIM.^[5]

Critique & Future Directions

There are multiple ways to further extend TMIM as well as critiques regarding its validity, etc. For example, a common technique for TMIM researchers is the testing of the information-seeker portion of TMIM; in fact, no dyadic examinations of the compelling exchange between an information seeker and an information provider, as posited by the TMIM, currently exist.^[5] Because of this, the validity of the TMIM's claims about the information provider is not yet established.^[5] Future research is warranted to determine if there are conditions under which increased efficacy judgements do produce information-management efforts with regard to only certain topics, or if findings are applicable to taboo topics in general.^[5] There is a general support for the ways in which TMIM works across differing relationship types. This is promising for the theory's future explication of managing information in regards to a variety of topics in close relationships, especially those under negative outcome expectancy conditions.^[5]

User:Mcthompson5/sandbox