Information processing theory was used to develop a general model of equivocation that takes into account the various forms of linguistic specificity beyond responsiveness to questions, as well as receivers' comprehensive processing of message content. The model posits causal effects of language specificity and message length on receivers' perceptions of linguistic specificity and their assessments of message clarity, position advocated, and personalization. The results of meta-analyses and causal models of conversation ratings show that message length decreased perceived linguistic specificity but increased message clarity and personalization, perceived specificity increased clarity and identification of position advocated, and clarity increased identification of position advocated and personalization. The immediacy ofthe channel ofpresentation enhanced the role of specificity in the model and inhibited the role of clarity in the model. The practical implications of these findings for the use of equivocation are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andreoli, V.
, & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator, and message position on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.
2.
Bavelas, J. B.
(1984). On "naturalistic" family research. Family processes, 23, 337-341.
3.
Bavelas, J. B.
, Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullet, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Bavelas, J. B.
, & Chovil, N. (1986). How people disqualify: Experimental studies of spontaneous written disqualification. Communication Monographs, 53, 70-74.
5.
Bem, S. L.
(1974).The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
6.
Black, A.
(1988). The syntax of conversational coherence. Discource Processes, 11, 433-455.
7.
Booth-Butterfield, S.
& Gutowski, C. (1993). Message modality and source credibility can interact to affect arguent processing. Communication Quarterly, 41, 77-89.
8.
Brown, P.
& Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions ofpoliteness, E. N. Goody (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Bull, P.
(1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
10.
Chafe, W. L.
(1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press.
11.
Chaiken, S.
, & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241-256.
12.
Daft, R. L.
, & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.
13.
Dillard, J. P
, Wilson, S. R., Tusing, K J., & Kinney, T. A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 297-325.
14.
Donohue, W. A.
(1998). Managing equivocality and relational paradox in the Oslo peace negotiations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 72-96.
15.
Eagly, A. H.
, & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
16.
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.
17.
Eisenberg, E.
(1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
18.
Eisenberg, E. M.
(1991). Review of the book Equivocal Communication. Communication Theory, 1, 351-353.
19.
Eisenberg, E. M.
(1998). Flirting with meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 97-108.
20.
Ellis, D. G.
(1991). Post-structuralism and language: Nonsense. Communication Monographs, 58, 213-224.
21.
Galasinski, D
, (in press). Strategies for talking to each other: Rule breaking in Polish presidential debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.
22.
Goody, E. N.
(1978). Towards a theory of questions. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions of politeness, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Goss, B.
, & Williams, M. L. (1973). The effects of equivocation on perceived source credibility. Central States Speech Journal, 24, 162-167.
24.
Grice, H. P.
(1975). Logic and conversations. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.
25.
Gutwinski, W
(1976). Cohesion in literary texts. Paris: Mouton.
26.
Haley, J.
(1959). The family of the schizophrenic: A model system. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 129, 357-374.
27.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
Halliday, M.A.K.
, & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman.
29.
Hamilton, M. A.
(1997). The phase interfaced omnistructure underlying the processing of persuasive messages. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Advances in communication science, (pp. 1-42). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
30.
Hamilton, M. A.
(1998). Message variables that mediate and moderate the effect of equivocal language and source credibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 109-143.
31.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Hunter, J. E. (1998). A framework for the interpretation of meta-analyses of the persuasion literature. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
32.
Hamilton, M. A.
, Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1993). The elaboration likelihood model as a theory of attitude formation: A mathematical analysis. Communication Theory, 3, 50-65.
33.
Hamilton, M. A.
, & Mineo, P. J. (1996). Personality and persuasibility: Developing a multidimensional model of belief systems. World Communication, 25, 1-20.
34.
Hinds, J.
(1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press.
35.
Hiz, H.
(1979). Questions. Boston: D. Reidel.
36.
Hoey, M.
(1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
Hunter, J. E.
, & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
Jones, L. B.
(1983). Pragmatic aspects of English text structure. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
39.
Kahneman, D.
(1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40.
Levy, D. M.
(1979). Communicative goals and strategies: Between discourse and syntax. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press.
41.
Longacre, R. E.
(1979). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press.
42.
McGuire, W. J.
(1968). Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock & T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
43.
Mineo, P. J.
(1996, May). Assessment of critical thinking while message processing. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
44.
Robinson, P.
, Shepard, A., & Heywood, J. (in press). Journal of Language and Social Psychology.
45.
Schegloff, E. A.
, & Sacks, H. (1973). Openings and closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
46.
Stiff, J. B.
(1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communication Mono-graphs, 53, 75-89.
47.
Tannen, D.
(1990). Youjust don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow.
48.
Tannen, D.
(1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 165-188). New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Tannen, D.
(1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
Tsui, A.B.M.
(1994). English conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
Warner, R. G.
(1985). Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland.
