It was hypothesized that double-bind communications would increase respondents' use of verbal nonimmediacy, a variation in language style which indicates reluctance to affirm the validity of explicit communication content. To assess this hypothesis, a male confederate created conflicting expectations by describing himself as first independent and then dependent to 10 conceptually simple and 10 conceptually complex male participants (as defined by their scores on Tuckman's 1966 Individual Topic Inventory) who were asked to respond with disclosures on similar topics. Further, the confederate acknowledged the incongruity in his self-disclosures to one-half of the participants but not to the other half. As expected, the conceptually complex participants who had not heard the confederate's acknowledgment of incongruity showed the greatest increase in nonimmediacy during their disclosures to the confederate.
References
1.
AbelesG.Researching the unresearchable: Experimentation on the double bind. In SluzkiC. E. & RansomD. C. (Eds.), Double bind: The foundation of the communicational approach to the family. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1976. Pp. 113–149.
2.
BatesonG.JacksonD. D.HaleyJ., & WeaklandJ.Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1956, 1, 251–264.
3.
BeakelN. G., & MehrabianA.Inconsistent communications and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 126–130.
4.
BergerA.A test of the double-bind hypothesis of schizophrenia. Family Process, 1956, 4, 198–205.
5.
BugenthalD. E.Interpretations of naturally occurring discrepancies between words and interaction: Modes of inconsistency resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 125–133.
6.
GotolaP. V.The effect of two contradictory levels of reward and censure on schizophrenia. Dissertation Abstracts, 1961, 22, 320. (University Microfilm 61–2278)
7.
CozbyP.Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 73–91.
8.
DushD. M., & BrodskyM.Effects and implications of the experimental double-bind. Psychological Reports, 1981, 48, 895–900.
9.
FiermanL.Effective psychotherapy: The contribution of Hellmuth Kaiser. New York: Free Press, 1965.
10.
GinsburgM.Action and communication. Human Context, 1974, 6, 81–102.
11.
GuindonJ. E.Paradox, schizophrenia, and the double-bind hypothesis: An exploratory study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 3002B. (University Microfilms 71–28412)
12.
KuikenD.Nonimmediate language style and inconsistency between private and expressed evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1981, 17, 183–196.
13.
LoeffR. G.Differential discrimination of conflicting emotional messages by normal, delinquent, and schizophrenic adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 26, 6850. (University Microfilms 66–1470)
14.
MayoC. W., & CrockettW. H.Cognitive complexity and primacy-recency effects in impression formation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 335–338.
15.
MehrabianA., & WienerM.Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 109–114.
16.
SchroderH. M.Conceptual complexity and personality organization. In SchroderH. M. & SuedfeltP. (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing. New York: Ronald, 1971. Pp. 240–273.
17.
SchroderH. M.DriverM. J., & StreufertS.Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967.
SluzkiC. E., & RansomD. C.Double bind: The foundation of the communicational approach to the family. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1976.
20.
SluzkiC. W., & VeronE.The double-bind as a universal pathogenic situation. Family Process, 1971, 10, 397–410.
21.
SmithE. K.Effect of double-bind communication on the anxiety level of normals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 356–363.
22.
TripodiT., & BieriJ.Information transmission in clinical judgements as a function of stimulus dimensionality and cognitive complexity. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 119–137.
