Research on bad news delivery reveals a reliable temporal delay in the onset of the bad news message from the sender to the receiver. Two experiments utilized a false feedback test design to determine whether the delay is better accounted for by negative verbal message planning, politeness, or both. Both studies (Ns = 135 and 138) featured participant-senders who delivered either scripted or unscripted good, neutral, or bad news to a stranger. News valence, delay before response, and reluctance were measured. Both experiments supported the functional politeness explanation. Study 2 also supported the negative verbal message–planning explanation. Implications and limitations are discussed.
AuneR. K. (1998, July). A theory of attribution of responsibility for creating understanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Jerusalem, Israel.
2.
AuneR. K.LevineT. R.ParkH. S.AsadaK. J. K.BanasJ. A. (2005). Tests of a theory of communicative responsibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 358-381. doi:10.1177/0261927X05281425
3.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
4.
BerscheidE. (1983). Emotion. In KellyH. H. (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). New York, NY: Freeman.
5.
BiselR. S.KelleyK. M.PloegerN. A.MessersmithJ. (2011). Workers’ moral mum effect: On facework and unethical behavior in the workplace. Communication Studies, 62, 153-170. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.551314
6.
BiselR. S.MessersmithA. S.KelleyK. M. (2012). Supervisor-subordinate communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 128-147.
7.
BondC. F.Jr.AndersonE. L. (1987). The reluctance to transmit bad news: Private discomfort or public display?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 176-187.
8.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BuckmanR. (1984). Breaking bad news: Why is it still so difficult?British Medical Journal, 288, 1597-1599.
10.
ConleeM. C.TesserA. (1973). The effects of recipient desire to hear on news transmission. Sociometry, 36, 588-599.
11.
DibbleJ. L.LevineT. R. (2010). Breaking good and bad news: Direction of the MUM effect and senders’ cognitive representations of news valence. Communication Research, 37, 703-722.
12.
DibbleJ. L.LevineT. R. (2012). Sharing and bad news with friends and stranger: Reasons for and communication behaviors associated with the MUM effect. Manuscript submitted for publication.
13.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105-1117.
14.
DillardJ. P.SegrinC.HardenJ. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19-38.
15.
DunnetC. W. (1980). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the unequal variance case. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 796-800.
16.
EgglyS.PennerL.AlbrechtT.ClineR. J. W.FosterT.NaughtonM.RuckdeschelJ. C. (2006). Discussing bad news in the outpatient oncology clinic: Rethinking current communication guidelines. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 716-719.
17.
FallowfieldL.JenkinsV. (2004). Communicating sad, bad, and difficult news in medicine. The Lancet, 363, 312-319.
18.
FisherC. D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 533-540.
19.
FiskeS. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
20.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
21.
HarrisonM. E.WallingA. (2010). What do we know about giving bad news? A review. Clinical Pediatrics, 49, 619-626. doi:10.1177/0009922810361380
22.
HatfieldE.CacioppoJ. T.RapsonR. L. (1992). Primitive emotional contagion. In ClarkM. S. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 151-177). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
ItoT. A.LarsenJ. T.SmithN. K.CacioppoJ. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900.
PeetersG.CzapinskiJ. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 455-474.
26.
PloegerN. A.KelleyK. M.BiselR. S. (2011). The hierarchical mum effect: A new investigation of organizational ethics. Southern Communication Journal, 76, 465-481.
27.
PtacekJ. T.PtacekJ. J.EllisonN. M. (2001). “I’m sorry to tell you . . .” Physician’s reports of breaking bad news. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 205-217.
28.
RosenS.TesserA. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry, 33, 253-263.
29.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.
30.
SussmanS. W.SproullL. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic communication. Information Systems Research, 10, 150-166.
31.
TaylorS. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
32.
TesserA.RosenS. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 193-232). New York, NY: Academic Press.
33.
TesserA.RosenS.TesserM. (1971). On the reluctance to communicate undesirable messages (the MUM effect): A field study. Psychological Reports, 29, 651-654.
34.
UysalA.Oner-OzkanB. (2007). A self-presentational approach to transmission of good and bad news. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 63-78.
35.
WeenigM. W. H.WilkeH. A. M.ter MorsE. (2011). Personal outcomes and moral responsibility as motives for news transmission: The impact of fate similarity, fate uncertainty, and relationship closeness. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650211402195
36.
WilsonS. R.AlemanC. G.LeathamG. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25, 64-96.
37.
WilsonS. R.KimM. S.MeischkeH. (1991). Evaluating Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory: A revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 215-252.
38.
YarivE. (2006). “Mum effect”: Principals’ reluctance to submit negative feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 533-546.
