The Form and Function of Remedial Moves: Reported Use,Psychological Reality and Perceived Effectiveness

Abstract

Three studies were conducted to examine the form and function of remedial moves. In the first study, the remedial moves that subjects reported using and receiving were analysed for frequency of occurrence. A surprisingly large percentage (55%) of these moves involved a combination of concessions and accounts. Subjects in the second study sorted into categories a sample of these remedial moves. A hierarchical cluster analysis of these sorts provided evidence for the psychological reality of some of the primary conceptual categories of remedial moves. A multidimensional scaling analysis suggests that the major remedial move types can be ordered on a single dimension. The results of the third study provided further support for this dimension, and suggest that remedial moves can be ordered in terms of the extent to which they encode concern for the face of the speaker and hearer. As expected, perception of hearer satisfaction was greater for moves that encoded concern for the hearer's face, and the more satisfying a move was perceived to be for the hearer, the more difficult it was judged for a speaker to use that move.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barret, K. 1974 Apologies as illocutionary acts . Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2, 121-131.

BMDP 1981 BMDP Statistical Software. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buttny, R. 1987 Sequence and practical reasoning in account episodes . Communication Quarterly 35, 67-83.

Clark, H. H. and Schunk, D. H. 1980 Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition 8, 111-143.

Cupach, W. R. , Metts, S. and Hazleton, V. 1986 Coping with embarrassing predicaments: Remedial strategies and their perceived utility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 5, 181-200.

Folger, J. P. and Poole, M. S. 1982 Relational coding schemes: The question of validity. In M. Burgoon (ed.) Communication Yearbook: 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Fraser, B. 1981 On apologising. In F. Coulmas (ed.) Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.

Goffman, E. 1971 Relations in Public. New York: Harper and Row.

10.

Hale, C. L. 1987

A comparison of accounts: When is a failure not a failure?

Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6, 117-132.

11.

Kruskal, J. B. and Wish, M. 1978 Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills: Sage.

12.

McLaughlin, M. L. , Cody, M. J. and O'Hair, H. D. 1983 The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behaviour. Human Communication Research 9, 208-224.

13.

McLaughlin, M. L. , Cody, M. J. and Rosenstein, N. E. 1983 Account sequences in conversations between strangers. Communication Monographs 50, 102-125.

14.

Schlenker, B. 1980 Impression Management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

15.

Schlenker, B. and Darby, B. 1981 The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly 44, 271-278.

16.

Schonbach, P. 1980 A category system for account phases . European Journal of Social Psychology 10, 195-200.

17.

Schonbach, P. 1985 A Taxonomy for Account Phases: Revised, Explained and Applied. Berichte aus der Arbeitseinheit Soziolpsychologie, Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum, West Germany.

18.

Semin, G. and Manstead, A 1983 The Accountability of Conduct. London: Academic Press.

19.

SPSS, Inc. 1987 SPSSX: Users Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.

20.

Stokes, R. and Hewitt, J. P. 1976 Aligning actions. American Sociological Review 41, 838-849.

21.

Sykes, G. M. and Matza, D. 1957 Techniques of neutralization. American Sociological Review 22, 644-670.

22.

Tedeschi, J. and Riess, M. 1981 Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki (ed.) The Psychology of Ordinary Explanations of Social Behaviour. New York: Academic Press.