User:Remoshay/sandbox

Theory of Motivated Information Management or TMIM, is a social-psychological framework that examines the relationship between information management and uncertainty. 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” (Guerrero et al. p. 83). 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.

This psychological theory, like many others, is applied in communication, specifically in the subfields of interpersonal and human communication.

Background
Theory of Motivated Information Management TMIM is a relatively new and developing theory. It was first proposed in 2004 by Walid Afifi and Judith Weiner through their article, “Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management”. A revision to the theory was put forth by Walid Afifi and Christopher Morse in 2009.

TMIM was developed to account for a peron’s ‘active’ information management efforts in interpersonal communication channels. The framework shares close ties to Brashers' uncertainty management theory, Babrow's problematic integration theory, Johnson & Meischkes' comprehensive model of information (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 addres 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 TMIM can be defined as a combination 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
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.

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.

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 sought after. 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 :

1. Outcome expectancy – individuals assess the pros and cons that come from seeking information about the issue. (Will the expected outcome be positive or negative?) 2. Efficacy assessments – 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. Unlikely 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 :

1. Communication efficacy – An individuals’ perception that they have the communication skills to successfully complete the task at hand. 2. Coping efficacy – An individuals’ belief that they can or cannot cope with what information they might discover from seeking. 3. Target efficacy – consist of two distinct components: target ability and target willingness. Thus, this is based on an individuals’ perception of the target person’s ability and willingness to give them information that will reduce their uncertainty discrepancy.

The theory argues that outcome expectancy, which is an individuals' assessments of the rewards and costs of information seeking, impact their efficacy judgments. However, they have little direct impact on their 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 uncertain, they usually adopt a communication strategy to do (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.

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.

Process for Information Provider
TMIM highlights the role of the target-information provider. 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. The provider considers the pros and cons of giving the seeker the sough-after information (outcome assessment) and their efficacy to do so. However, the efficacy perceptions are tailored toward the provider:

1. Communication efficacy – Is the provider confident in their skills to competently provide the information? 2. Coping efficacy – Can the provider cope with the consequences of providing the information? 3. Target efficacy – Is the seeker able and willing to manage the provided information?

These outcome and 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 sough-after information. For example, the information provider can decide to respond to a seeker request face-to-face or by email.

Application
Several studies have successfully tested TMIM. Specifically, the theory have acturately predicated whether people seek sexual health information from their partners (2006), what drives people to talk with their family about organ donation (2006) whether teenages talk to their divorced or nondivorced parents about the parents’ relationship (2009), and whether adult children talk to their elderly parents about eldercare preferences (2011), 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.