Managing Uncertainty: Helping Parents in Uncertain Times

Uncertainty can be a challenge for anyone, but there are ways to manage it.

Posted Aug 11, 2020

By Dalila Dragnić-Cindrić and Dr. Jeffrey A. Greene of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

With the increasing probability that K-12 online learning will continue in some form this fall, many parents are likely uncertain about whether and how they can handle it again after tough experiences in the spring.

Although the scale and the omnipresence of the uncertainty in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic might be novel, research on how people manage uncertainty has been around for decades. In this post, we revisit some of the old but increasingly relevant constructs and findings from psychology research that can help parents navigate through the current challenges.

But what is uncertainty? Is it a person’s response to a situation, a characteristic of a situation, or both? Kagan (1972) defined uncertainty as an alerted affective state stemming from an inability to predict the future, or the incompatibility between two ideas, an idea and experience, or an idea and behavior. He included the need to resolve uncertainty among the four primary motives driving human behavior, also including sensory pleasure, resolution of anger and hostility, and achievement of mastery.

On the other hand, although many authors agree that situations can be described in terms of their degree of uncertainty, they rarely define situational uncertainty (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In our own work, we have described situational uncertainty as a characteristic of complex situations that are not fully definable, interpretable, or predictable, and have a multiplicity of possible outcomes and related consequences. In uncertain situations, personal ways of dealing with uncertainty become relevant. The more uncertain the situation, however, the more influential a person’s typical way of resolving uncertainty becomes (e.g., Sorrentino et al., 1988).

Three constructs from social psychology are particularly helpful for understanding the various ways people deal with uncertainty: intolerance of ambiguity (Budner, 1962), need for cognitive closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), and uncertainty orientations (Sorrentino & Roney, 2000).

Intolerance of ambiguity (Budner, 1962; Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949) refers to a person’s propensity for interpreting ambiguous situations as threatening. A person who is intolerant of ambiguity reacts to such situations with avoidance or rejection, accompanied by feelings of discomfort, dislike, uneasiness, anxiety, and sometimes anger (Grenier et al., 2005; Rosen et al. 2014). Ambiguity intolerant people reduce these situations to ones that are simpler and more familiar by focusing on a limited set of cues; they rigidly adhere to what they already know, leading to suboptimal decision-making (Stoycheva, 2003).

In contrast, people who are tolerant of ambiguity have even-tempered emotional reactions to it; they can perceive ambiguous situations more realistically and handle them with flexibility, without distorting or omitting valuable cues. Tolerance of ambiguity can help parents adapt as educational roadmaps evolve in response to changes in the pandemic.

The need for cognitive closure is a desire to reach a definitive answer on an open issue to avoid uncertainty, confusion, and ambiguity (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). Researchers have found that individuals with a strong need for closure are motivated to eliminate uncertainty and obtain closure; they form quick and simplistic judgments based on limited evidence (Kossowska & Bar-Tal, 2013; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). In contrast, individuals who have a low need for closure can suspend judgment as they engage in systematic evaluation of available options resulting in more complex and flexible decision-making. For example, people with a low need for cognitive closure might investigate novel hybrid instructional models and be more open to taking advantage of their affordances.

Finally, people’s uncertainty orientation can affect how they process information when they approach situations of varying degrees of uncertainty (Shuper & Sorrentino, 2004). Uncertainty-oriented individuals have a positive orientation toward uncertain situations and are motivated to resolve uncertainty by focusing on what they can discover and learn about themselves and their environment (Sorrentino & Hewitt, 1984). In these situations, such as when considering different options for homeschooling, uncertainty-oriented individuals are motivated to think effortfully and process information systematically, using effective strategies.

Certainty-oriented individuals, on the other hand, orient toward what is certain and familiar and strive to maintain current clarity by avoiding or ignoring uncertainty (Sorrentino & Hewitt, 1984). In uncertain situations, certainty-oriented individuals use often unhelpful heuristics—shortcuts for judgment and decision-making.

For people who would like to optimize how they deal with uncertainty, it is helpful to understand different ways we tend to respond to it. For parents who are feeling unease or anxiety about the current uncertainties regarding the changing educational landscape, or who see their children wanting to withdraw from uncertainty altogether, these findings from social psychology offer some valuable lessons:

  • Understand and accept: Whether you feel anxious and want to flee or are okay with the “up in the air” status of the next school year, know that many other people feel the same way. Our human nature pushes us to resolve the uncertainty, by either actively addressing it or by turning away from it.
  • Normalize: Parents can model behaviors for their children that normalize feelings of anxiety in response to uncertainty. For example, parents can say: “Video conferencing flustered me at first, but I figured it out—you can, too.”
  • Turn unfamiliar into familiar: Another helpful tip for reducing anxiety regarding unknowns is to learn more about them. Children may benefit from practicing with the technology they will use for online learning. Parents can practice video calls with their children and play out scenarios such as how to share the screen or ask a question in a chat window.
  • Preserve and evolve: There are situations in which each of the ways of dealing with the uncertainty has its advantages. Our desire to orient towards what is certain and known will serve us well as we pivot to online learning and seek to remember and preserve the best educational practices from the traditional classroom environment. On the other hand, our desire to explore the unknown will help us “level up” and evolve those educational practices to fit the new circumstances. A certainty-orientation would make it more likely that parents preserve a student’s educational routine, which can be beneficial. Uncertainty-orientated parents may be more willing to let go of traditional ideas of schooling and instead embrace the perspective that learning from home means a balance of formal learning time and time with family and other home distractions.
  • Balance: Importantly, the best response to an uncertain situation might be balancing out our typical response with one that is less common for us. For example, a parent who would like to know and research all possible options about the upcoming academic year might need to strike a balance between the need to keep searching for the perfect solution with the need to make a decision now, which, even if it is less than ideal, provides some closure and a way to move forward.

People have different ways of dealing with uncertainty. Understanding how and why we approach or turn away from uncertain situations is critical to productively managing our responses to them. Although at the moment there is high uncertainty about remote learning and its implementation, it helps to remember some lasting ideas from psychology, so we can more thoughtfully handle the uncertainty of the global pandemic and its implications.

References

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108-143. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x

Grenier, S., Barrette, A.-M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 593-600. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014

Kagan, J. (1972). Motives and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 51-66. doi:10.1037/h0032356

Kossowska, M., & Bar-Tal, Y. (2013). Need for closure and heuristic information processing: The moderating role of the ability to achieve the need for closure. British Journal of Psychology, 104(4), 457-480. doi:doi:10.1111/bjop.12001

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: 'Seizing' and 'freezing'. Psychological review, 103(2), 263-283. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263

Rosen, N. O., Ivanova, E., & Knäuper, B. (2014). Differentiating intolerance of uncertainty from three related but distinct constructs. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 27(1), 55-73. doi:10.1080/10615806.2013.815743

Shuper, P. A., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2004). Minority versus majority influence and uncertainty orientation: Processing persuasive messages on the basis of situational expectancies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2), 127-147. doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.2.127-148

Sorrentino, R. M., & Hewitt, E. C. (1984). The uncertainty-reducing properties of achievement tasks revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 884-899.

Sorrentino, R. M., & Roney, C. J. R. (2000). The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknown. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Stoycheva, K. (2003). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities? In P. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.), Science education: Talent recruitment and public understanding (pp. 31-43). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unc/detail.action?docID=267529.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049