Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-6
Why Do We Think Politicians Are So Evasive? Insight From Theories of Equivocation and Deception,With a Content Analysis of U.S. Presidential Debates,1996-2012
Politicians have a reputation for deception. Instead of blaming the politicians themselves, equivocation theory directs our attention to the situation in which politicians are asked questions. We draw on recent theories of deception detection—truth-default theory and information manipulation theory 2—to propose that a reason we think politicians are so evasive might be because, ironically, we believe them when they accuse their opponents of evasiveness in equivocal situations. We perform a content analysis of the question–answer sequences (N = 810) in U.S. presidential debates 1996 to 2012. Our results indicate that politicians accuse each other of evasion to a significant degree. Meanwhile, they are not necessarily dodging questions to the extent that their overt allegations suggest. This study demonstrates how the predictions of equivocation theory and deception detection theories apply to the domain of U.S. presidential debates.
AndoneC. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
2.
BaarsB. J.FranklinS. (2007). An architectural model of conscious and unconscious brain functions: Global workspace theory and IDA. Neural Networks, 20, 955-961.
3.
BavelasJ. B.BlackA.BrysonL.MullettJ. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.
4.
BavelasJ. B.BlackA.ChovilN.MullettJ. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
BenoitW. L.CurrieH. (2001). Inaccuracies in media coverage of the 1996 and 2000 presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 28-39.
6.
BitzerL.RueterT. (1980). Carter vs. Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
7.
BokS. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York, NY: Vintage.
8.
BowersJ. W.ElliottN. D.DesmondR. J. (1977). Exploiting pragmatic rules: Devious messages. Human Communication Research, 3, 235-242.
9.
BullP. (1994). On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 115-131.
10.
BullP. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
11.
BullP. (2008). “Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity”: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333-344.
12.
BullP. (2015). Evasive or untruthful discourse. In TracyK.IilieC.SandelT. L. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 569-574). Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell.
13.
BullP.ElliottJ.PalmerD.WalkerL. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.
14.
BullP.FeldmanO. (2012). Theory and practice in political discourse research. In SunR. (Ed.), Grounding social sciences in cognitive sciences (pp. 157-182). Cambridge: MIT.
15.
BullP.FetzerA. (2010). Face, facework and political discourse. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 23, 155-185.
16.
BullP.MayerK. (1988). Interruptions in political interviews: A study of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 35-46.
17.
BullP.MayerK. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14, 651-666.
18.
BullP.Simon-VandenbergenA.-M. (2014). Equivocation and doublespeak in far right-wing discourse: An analysis of Nick Griffin’s performance on BBC’s Question Time. Text and Talk, 34, 1-22.
19.
BullP.WellsP. (2012). Adversarial discourse in prime minister’s questions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 30-48.
20.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.
21.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K.BusligA. L. S.RoigerJ. F. (1994). Interpersonal deception VIII. Further analysis of nonverbal and verbal correlates of equivocation from the Bavelas et al. (1990) research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 396-417.
22.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K.WhiteC. H.EbesuA. S. (1994). Interpersonal deception VII. Behavioral profiles of falsification, equivocation, and concealment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 366-395.
23.
ClaymanS. E. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30, 403-442.
24.
ClaymanS. E.HeritageJ. (2002). Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52, 749-775.
25.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A.KirkendolS. E.WyerM. M.EpsteinJ. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995.
26.
EkmanP. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (4th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
27.
EkströmM. (2009). Announced refusal to answer: A study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies, 11, 681-702.
28.
EvelandW. P.Jr.McLeodD. M.NathansonA. I. (1994). Reporters vs. undecided voters: An analysis of the questions asked during the 1992 presidential debates. Communication Quarterly, 42, 390-406.
29.
FeldmanO.KinoshitaK.BullP. (2015). Culture or communicative conflict? The analysis of equivocation in broadcast political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 65-89.
30.
FinkelS. E. (1993). Reexamining the “minimal effects” model in recent presidential campaigns. Journal of Politics, 55, 1-21.
31.
GalasinskiD. (1998). Strategies of talking to each other: Rule breaking in Polish presidential debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 165-182.
GilbertD. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
34.
GoffmanE. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 18, 213-231.
35.
GoffmanE. (1967). Where the action is. In GoffmanE. (Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior (pp. 149-270). Garden City, NY: Anchor.
36.
GoffmanE. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society, 5, 257-313.
37.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 43-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
38.
GriceH. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
39.
GrimmerJ. (2010). A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Political Analysis, 18, 1-35.
40.
HamiltonM. A.MineoP. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35.
41.
HarrisS. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In ScannellP. (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 76-99). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
HarwoodJ. (2014). Easy lies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 405-410.
43.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.
44.
HealyW.HealyM. T. (1915). Pathological lying, accusation, and swindling. Criminal Science Monographs, 1, 1-278.
45.
HerrmannT. (1983). Speech and situation: A psychological conception of situation speaking. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
46.
HuntingtonS. P. (1981). American politics: The promise of disharmony. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
47.
JamiesonK. H. (2015). The discipline’s debate contributions: Then, now, and next. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 101, 85-97.
48.
JuckerA. H. (1986). News interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
49.
KalbfleischP. J. (1994). The language of detecting deceit. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 469-496.
50.
KarpmanB. (1949). Lying: A minor inquiry into the ethics of neurotic and psychopathic behavior. Psychiatric Quarterly, 23, 1-25.
51.
KatzE.FeldmanJ. J. (1962). The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates (pp. 173-223). Bloomington: Indiana University.
52.
KimR. K.LevineT. R. (2011). The effect of suspicion on deception detection accuracy: Optimal level or opposing effects?Communication Reports, 24, 51-62.
53.
KinderD. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 778-867). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
KrippendorffK. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411-433.
56.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University.
57.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378-392.
58.
LevineT. R.ParkH. S.McCornackS. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.”Communication Monographs, 66, 125-144.
59.
McCornackS. A.LevineT. R. (1990). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 219-230.
60.
McCornackS. A.MorrisonK.PaikJ. E.WisnerA. M.ZhuX. (2014). Information Manipulation Theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 348-377.
61.
McGrawK. M. (1998). Manipulating public opinion with moral justification. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 560, 129-142.
62.
McKinneyM. S.CarlinD. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In KaidL. L. (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
MeissnerC. A.KassinS. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!” Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
64.
OlsonE. A. (2013). “You don’t expect me to believe that, do you?” Expectations influence recall and belief of alibi information. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1238-1247.
65.
ParkH. S.LevineT. R. (2001). A probability model of accuracy in deception detection experiments. Communication Monographs, 68, 201-210.
66.
RasiahP. (2010). A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 664-680.
67.
RogersT.NortonM. I. (2011). The artful dodger: Answering the wrong question the right way. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 139-147.
68.
SearsD. O.ChaffeeS. H. (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates, 1976: Ford vs. Carter (pp. 223-261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
69.
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R.BosterF. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36, 2-25.
70.
Simon-VandenbergenA.-M. (2008). “Those are only slogans”: A linguistic analysis of argumentation in debates with extremist political speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 345-358.
71.
SluzkiC. E.BeavinJ.TarnopolskyA.VerónE. (1967). Transactional disqualification: Research on the double bind. Archives of General Psychiatry, 16, 494-504.
72.
Van SwolL. M.BraunM. T. (2014). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication, 64, 1139-1159.
73.
VerschuereB.ShalviS. (2014). The truth comes naturally! Does it?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 417-423.
74.
VrijA.GranhagP. A.PorterS. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89-121.
75.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
