The theoretical framework of this long-term research project on equivocation includes three essential principles: (a) An interesting and unexplained phenomenon is worth studying for itself, by inductive methods; (b) communicative acts are part of a communicative sequence; and (c) the methods must keep the phenomenon in its communicative sequence. The article explicates these principles and applies them to other research, including the studies in this special issue. The broader issue is the cumulative nature of research, that is, how to judge when a new study adds to, confirms, or disconfirms a body of work versus when new studies take such a different direction that they do not bear on previous work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, G. W.
(1968). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1983). Situations that lead to disqualification. Human Communication Research, 9, 130-145.
3.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1985). A situational theory of disqualification: Using language to "leave the field." In J. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 189-211). New York: Springer.
4.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1987). Permitting creativity in science. In D. N. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 307-327). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1991). Some problems with linking goals to discourse. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 119-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1994). Gestures as part of speech: Methodological implications. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27, 201-22 1.
7.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1995). Quantitative versus qualitative? In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Communication as social construction: Social approaches to the study of interpersonal interaction (pp. 49-62). New York: Guilford.
8.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Bryson, L., & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.
9.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communicative. Human Communication Research, 14, 275-299.
10.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990a). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990b). Truths, lies, and equivocations: The effects of conflicting goals on discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 129-155.
12.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Lemery, C. R., MacInnis, S., & Mullett, J. (1986). Experimental methods for studying "elementary motor mimicry."Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 102-119.
13.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). "I show how you feel": Motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 322-329.
14.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1987). Motor mimicry as primitive empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 317-338). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Bavelas, J. B.
, & Chovil, N. (1986). How people disqualify: Experimental studies of spontaneous written disqualification. Communication Monographs, 53, 70-74.
16.
Bavelas, J. B.
, & Chovil, N. (1997a). Faces in dialogue. In J. A. Russell & J. M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), Thepsychology offacial expression (pp. 334-346). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (1997b). Redefining language: An integrated message model of language in face-to-face dialogue. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria.
18.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Chovil, N., Coates, L., & Roe, L. (1995). Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 394-405.
19.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Chovil, N., Lawrie, D. A., & Wade, A. (1992). Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes, 15, 469-489.
20.
Bavelas, J. B.
, & Coates, L. (1992). How do we account for the mindfulness of face-to-face dialogue?Communication Monographs, 59, 301-305.
21.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (1995, May). Listeners as co-narrators. Paper presented at International Communication Association annual conference, Albuquerque, NM.
22.
Bavelas, J. B.
, & Smith, B. J. (1982). A method for scaling verbal disqualification. Human Communication Research, 8, 214-227.
23.
Bull, P.
(1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 36-51.
24.
de Shazer, S.
(1985). Keys to solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
25.
de Shazer, S.
(1988). Clues: Investigatingsolutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
26.
de Shazer, S.
(1994). Words were originally magic. New York: Norton.
27.
Donohue, W. A.
(1998). Managing equivocality and relational paradox in the Oslo peace negotiations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 72-96.
28.
Edwards, R.
(1998). The effects of gender, gender-role, and values on the interpretation of messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 52-71.
29.
Eisenberg, E. M.
(1998). Flirting with meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 97-108.
30.
Friedman, S.
(1993). The new language of change. New York: Guilford.
31.
Galasinski, D.
(1998). Strategies of talking to each other: Rule breaking in Polish presidential debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(2), 165-182.
32.
Grice, H. P.
(1975). Logic and conversations. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntaxand semantics (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.
33.
Hamilton, M. A.
(1998). Message variables that mediate and moderate the effect of equivocal language on source credibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 109-143.
34.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(1), 3-35.
35.
Lewin, K.
(1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces. Contributions to Psychological Theory, 1(4, Serial N. 4).
36.
Morison, R. S.
(1960). "Gradualness, gradualness, gradualness" (I. P. Pavlov). American Psychologist, 15, 187-197.
37.
Roberts, G. K.
, & Bavelas, J. (1996). The communicative dictionary: A collaborative theory of meaning. In J. Stewart (Ed.), Beyond the symbol model: Reflections on the nature of language (pp. 135-160). Albany: State University of New York Press.
38.
Robinson, W. P.
, Shepherd, A., & Heywood, J. (1998). Truth, equivocation/concealment and lies in job applications and doctor-patient communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(2), 149-164.
39.
Sluzki, C. E.
, Beavin, J., Tarnopolsky, A., & Veron, E. (1967). Transactional disqualification: Research on the double bind. Archives of General Psychiatry, 16, 494-504. (Originally published in Spanish, 1966, Acta psiquiatrica y psicologica de America latina, 12, 329-342)
40.
Turner, K. E.
, Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69-89.
41.
van Dijk, T.
(1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse and Society, 3,87-118.
42.
Watzlawick, P.
, Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
43.
White, M.
, & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeuticends. NewYork: Norton.
