A Vision for the Continued Success of the JLSP

Abstract

In this essay, I share a story of how asking a naive question in office hours as an undergraduate sparked in me a sustaining passion for the study of language and social psychology (LSP). Now, as I enter a new LSP venture as Editor for this unique and important journal, I detail four publishing priorities. I assume this position with humility and gratitude in light of four-plus decades of editorial leadership from Howie Giles and his impressive and influential vision for the Journal of Language and Social Psychology.

My introduction to the study of language and social psychology (LSP) started with a referral. It was the late 1990s, and I was an undergraduate at the University of California, Berkeley, majoring in psychology with a minor in linguistics. I was in the office hours of Dan Slobin (2003) for his course on psycholinguistics and had just asked him why his class, which I was thoroughly enjoying, was “so cognitive and not that social.” I continued saying, “I’m particularly interested in the social psychology of how people use language, like conversation and social interaction.” He replied in a very matter-of-fact, though gentle manner, “Because this is psycholinguistics; go talk to Susan Ervin-Tripp who's a sociolinguist.” The next chance I got, I enrolled in Ervin-Tripp's (1976) research seminar on conversation analysis (CA) and later became her research assistant for a CA project on teasing among friends. I was also able to take a course on sociolinguistics from Robin Lakoff (1973) while at Berkeley, conducting a gender and language attitudes experiment for the term paper.

My ventures into LSP continued when I enrolled at the University of California, Santa Barbara for my graduate studies. I worked closely with additional LSP scholars, such as Kathy Kellermann, Howie Giles, Jim Bradac, Tony Mulac, Scott Reid, and others. Plus, I was fortunate to be appointed the highly coveted gig of teaching assistant for Howie for his course on intergroup communication. Since then, I have continued to pursue my passion for the social psychology of language, cultivating an LSP-focused research program over the last 20+ years working alongside even more LSP scholars, such as Chuck Berger, Mike Motley, Matt McGlone, and others.

With this background, I am honored and humbled to take on the position of Editor for the Journal of Language and Social Psychology (JLSP). With this background, I approach my latest LSP venture with an interdisciplinary perspective and high theoretical and empirical standards that comport well with the history of this unique and meaningful journal. I elaborate below focusing on four publishing priorities.

Continuing with the history of the journal, I aim to publish social scientific research answering questions theoretically germane to LSP. That is, articles exploring the social psychological processes involved in language production, processing, and attendant outcomes are publishing priorities. Communication lies at the intersection of social psychology and language use. Learning how people create, send, receive, understand, recall, judge, and respond to messages is at the core of LSP scholarship, as is research that examines broader LSP processes involved in communication. In other words, whereas some LSP research may measure, manipulate, or otherwise empirically assess language use and/or linguistic mechanisms, other work may focus on more communicatively macro processes with theoretical and practical implications for the social psychology of language use. Not all LSP scholarship needs to empirically assess language, as long as the work has clearly articulated theoretical connections to the social psychology of language. Thus, theory is critical.

Authors should test and advance theory via careful explication of psychological mechanisms that explain how language functions in social interaction. Employing the logic of theoretical deduction should accompany the use of empirical generalizations to support hypotheses (Roloff, 2015). In other words, path diagrams and an overreliance on past findings do not constitute theory; a precisely detailed narrative is needed to explain why causal connections exist among constructs and to justify the derivation of hypotheses from theory. Theory should aim to enhance the precision of the mechanisms purported to account for observed processes (Ewoldsen, 2022). Theoretically, nascent work should pose well thought out research questions and then discuss how theory progresses given conclusions, such as qualitative work approached from a grounded theoretical perspective. As theoretical precision increases, predictions likewise become more specific or nuanced, allowing for riskier, more falsifiable tests of theory. From an experimental paradigm, directional main effect predictions are easier to make than three-way interaction predictions with all simple–simple main effects stated explicitly a priori. Thus, theoretical efforts chiefly aimed at description or exploration should consider the extent to which their work might gain more precision and/or be able to predict (via explanation) more complex systems for the LSP phenomena of interest. Otherwise, Short Research Report submissions might be better suited, as the theoretical bandwidth for such pieces will likely be limited, given the focus on method, results, and conclusions. Theoretical advancement in the realm of LSP is a publishing priority.

Thus, rigorous methods are likewise critical. If knowledge is to progress, we must be able to trust our methods. Assembling the most appropriate methodological tool kit given the scholarly agenda is key, rather than relying on the most convenient tools or employing the most “fancy” state-of-the-art tools without proper justification. Validity (internal and external) is crucial, of course, in the usual manner for any study, such as internally consistent measures, representative samples, and a priori power analyses. Research should consider stimulus generalizability when designing a study, as well as multistudy conceptual replications that operationally diversify efforts across studies. Multistudy articles of this sort can use the same fundamental tool, such as a three-experiment study testing a theory incrementally to tell a compelling narrative, or they can use diverse methods, such as a computational language model reported alongside a survey. Likewise, qualitative research might be paired with a quantitative assessment of the proposed mechanisms in a single article. At the same time, when such mixed-method endeavors in one article are infeasible at the very least for page length reasons—as I’m aware my suggestions in the last two sentences are quite ambitious and easily said, yet much more effortful and persnickety to achieve—single-study articles should discuss carefully planned means of executing future research using alternative methods. For example, CA research may suggest concrete experimental stimuli, just as experimental articles may suggest a means to achieve more naturally occurring language stimuli via social scientific qualitative analyses or the use of corpora for big data analyses. Methodological triangulation is an effective means of establishing conclusions with valid data, and such reports are publishing priorities. Whereas consistent findings across studies might make interpretations and conclusions easier, authors should confront head on and discuss such differences and similarities across studies and the theoretical and operational reasons for inconsistencies, as such opportunities often provide springboards for theory advancement and future research (Berger et al., 2010).

Finally, research asking meaningful questions with social justice implications is a publishing priority. The social psychological mechanisms of linguistically leveraged oppression, discrimination, and other intergroup processes are critical concerns for LSP scholarship, such as language attitudes research using diverse populations and historically disadvantaged communities. The communication dynamics at the crossroads of social psychology and language provide many opportunities to pose and answer questions with practical advice wherein LSP scholars can have a seat at several tables with significant social justice gains. Intimate partner abuse and violence, cyberbullying and mental health, hate graffiti, social media misinformation, elder abuse, political advertisements and polarization, charitable contributions, online dating and loneliness, sexual consent, collective action and organizing, environmental campaigns and preservation efforts, policy/law implementation, neo-pronouns, revisionist history, reproductive rights, health disclaimers and medical adherence, social and emotional support, music lyrics and well-being, and police brutality are all consequential contexts in which to examine the psychological processes of language use with rippling social justice ramifications. The more our explanations effectively account for contextually transcendent fundamental LSP processes across these and other crucial domains, the more heuristic and practical value our theories will have, ultimately enhancing social justice efforts for humanity. Indeed, numerous articles in the most recent volume (42) of the JLSP testify to the social justice scholarship that Howie's editorial prowess has already set forth.

Overall, I plan to continue and expand the momentum that Howie has established and nourished for this journal, raised from its infancy, over the past four plus decades (Giles, 2023). I am forever grateful for his trust in me and the words of encouragement in his farewell statement. Vis-à-vis his innovative vision, pioneering hard work, keen discernment, and compassionate continuity for the JLSP, Howie has not only invigorated the journal all these years; he has shaped a field and community of scholars toward which I am very happy to have gravitated in my early studies. The LSP community is beyond grateful and indebted to you and all your effort, Howie. Thank you! I am also thankful to the International Association of Language and Social Psychology for their confidence in me and excited for the continued relationship with occasional Special Issues from productive sessions at the International Conference on Language and Social Psychology and also announcing LSP news, conferences, and awards.

I am eager to start as Editor and look forward to reading the amazing scholarship on the social psychology of language that comes across my desk in all its theoretical and methodological manifestations representing our diverse LSP community. I hope my musing herein has given y’all some guidance and that the updated aims and scope online provide even further help, though feel free to reach out as needed for clarifications. With your trust, Nik (they/she/he).