Tests of a Theory of Communicative Responsibility

Abstract

Two studies are presented that provide the first empirical tests of a theory of communicative responsibility. The theory posits that individuals in communicative situations make systematic judgments of the extent to which each party is responsible for contributing to the process of creating understanding in a communicative event. These judgments affect the extent to which communicators engage in implicature and inference-making during the communicative event. The first study demonstrates that judgments of communicative responsibility affect communicative performance. Respondents’ judgments of their personal communicative responsibility in a direction-giving task were positively associated with the length of their directions. The second study showed that a communicator’s failure to behave in a communicatively responsible manner was associated with negative perceptions of the communicative behavior. Communicative responsibility theory would be useful in a number of areas of communication research, including natural language processing, relational communication, misunderstandings and conversational repair, communication competence, and deception.

Keywords

conversational implicature inference understanding collaboration common ground discourse

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aune, R. K. (1998). A theory of attribution of responsibility for creating understanding. Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Jerusalem, Israel.

Aune, R. K. , Ching, P. U. , & Levine, T. R. (1996). Communicative deception as a function of reward value: A test of two explanations. Communication Quarterly, 44, 478-486.

Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J. K. , & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effect of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20, 67-96.

Burgoon, J. K. , Stern, L. A. , & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fussell, S. R. , & Krauss, R. M. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203-219.

Fussell, S. R. , & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 378-391.

10.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248-271.

12.

Hirst, G. , McRoy, S. , Heeman, P. , Edmonds, P. , & Horton, D. (1994). Repairing conversational misunderstandings and non-understanding. Speech Communication, 15, 213-229.

13.

Holtgraves, T. (1998). Interpersonal foundations of conversational indirectness. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 71-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Hunter, J. E. , & Hamilton, M. A. (1986). Path [Computer program]. Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

15.

Krauss, R. M. , & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9, 2-24.

16.

Krauss, R. M. , & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 665-701). New York: Guilford.

17.

McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 1-16.

18.

McCornack, S. A. , Levine, T. R. , Solowczuk, K. A. , Torres, H. I. , & Campbell, D. M. (1992). When the alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 17-29.

19.

McRoy, S. W. , & Hirst, G. (1995). The repair of speech act misunderstandings by abductive inference. Computational Linguistics, 21, 435-478.

20.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.