Equivocation, the use of ambiguity or vagueness, is used to protect face when an interlocutor seeks to avoid a hurtful truth or a deception. This study compared the effects of self and other-face, sex, and several versions of equivocation on perceptions of messages. Participants (n = 354) read a scenario about a public-speaking situation in which a classmate makes a comment about a poor performance. Equivocation, especially that directed at other-face, is judged more polite than unequivocal criticism. Unequivocal criticism is judged as more competent and honest than equivocation. A mixed message is regarded the most positively.
Bavelas, J. B. (1983). Situations that lead to disqualification. Human Communication Research, 9, 130-145.
2.
Bavelas, J. B. (1985). A situational theory of disqualification: Using language to “leave the field.” In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 189-211). New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
Bavelas, J. B. (1998). Theoretical and methodological principles of the equivocation project. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 183-199.
4.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L., & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.
5.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990a). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
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, 135-161.
7.
Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (1986). How people disqualify: Experimental studies of spontaneous written disqualification. Communication Monographs, 53, 70-74.
8.
Bavelas, J. B., & Smith, B. J. (1982). A method for scaling verbal disqualification. Human Communication Research, 8, 214-227.
9.
Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456.
10.
Bello, R. (1999). Avoidance-avoidance conflict, situational formality, and personality as causes of interpersonal equivocation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
11.
Bello, R. (2000). Determinants of equivocation: The influence of situational formality, interaction phase, and ambiguity tolerance. Communication Research, 27, 161-193.
12.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Bull, P. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
15.
Bull, P., Elliott, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.
16.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
17.
Cappella, J. N., & Palmer, M. T. (1992). The effect of partners’ conversation on the association between attitude similarity and attraction. Communication Monographs, 59, 180-189.
18.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical test of Lakoff’s hypothesis. Language in Society, 6, 313-322.
20.
Edwards, R. (1998). The effects of gender, gender-role, and values on the interpretation of messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 52-71.
21.
Edwards, R. (2000). Interpreting relational meanings: The influence of sex and gender-role. Communication Research Reports, 17, 13-21.
22.
Edwards, R., & Bello, R. (2001). Interpretations of messages: The influence of equivocation, face concerns, and ego involvement. Human Communication Research, 27, 597-631.
23.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
24.
Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183-198). New York: Academic Press.
25.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
26.
Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 359-417). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169-181.
28.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45-80.
29.
Lim, T., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450.
30.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?Sex Roles, 3, 545-559.
31.
Motley, M. T. (1992). Mindfulness in solving communicators’ dilemmas. Communication Monographs, 59, 306-314.
32.
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, 149-164.
33.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
34.
Rogan, R. G., & Hammer, M. R. (1994). Crisis negotiations: A preliminary investigation of facework in naturalistic conflict discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 216-231.
35.
Rummelhart, M. A. (1983). When in doubt: Strategies used in response to interactional uncertainty. Discourse Processes, 6, 377-402.
36.
Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 127-140.
37.
Sharrock, W. W., & Turner, R. (1978). On a conversational environment for equivocality. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 173-197). New York: Academic Press.
38.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Cocroft, B. (1994). Face and facework: Theoretical and research issues. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp.307-340). Albany: State University of New York Press.
39.
Trees, A. R., & Manusov, V. (1998). Managing face concerns in criticism: Integrating non-verbal behaviors as a dimension of politeness in female friendship dyads. Human Communication Research, 24, 564-583.
40.
Turner, R. 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.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213.
42.
Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leatham, G. 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.
