The actor's use of the “account” has been emphasized as an important interpersonal strategy for maintaining smooth-flowing social interaction and for identity maintenance and negotiation. The purpose of the 3 × 2 × 2 factorial experimental design was to investigate the effects of accounts (excuse, justification, and confession only) and two other credibility-enhancing tactics— high and low eye contact, and high and low social status communicated nonverbally on three major variables thought to be affected by accounts—perceived credibility, responsibility, and remorsefulness. The context of the account presentation was a “credibility detracting” situation. Thirty-six male and 36 female undergraduates viewed a short videotaped interview of a male who told a story about a shoplifting episode. The observers then answered questions about their perceptions of the person in the videotape. The results generally indicated that for this particular context, the ability of the account to transform the meaning of an act has been overemphasized, but the account can be highly effective for communicating emotion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonE.GoldenB. W.1962“The effect of relevant and irrelevant aspects of communicator credibility on opinion change”. J. of Personality30: 135–146
AustinW.WalsterE.PateM. A.1973““The effects of ‘suffering in the act’ on liking and assigned punishment”. Unpublished research report. University of Wisconsin
4.
AustinW.WalsterE.UtneM. K.1976“Equity and the law: The effect of a harmdoer's ‘suffering in the act’ on liking and assigned punishment”. In BerkowitzL.WalsterE. (eds.) Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press
5.
BackmanC.1976“Explorations in psycho-ethics: The warranting of judgements,” in HarreR. (ed.) Life Sentences Aspects of the Social Role of Language. New York: John Wiley
6.
BaierK.1970“Responsibility and action,” in BrandM. (ed.) The Nature of Human Action. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
7.
BeebeS. A.1974“Eye contact: A nonverbal determinant of speaker credibility”. The Speech Teacher23: 21–25
8.
BerloD. K.LemertJ. B.MertzR. T.1970“Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources”. Public Opinion Q. 33: 563–571
9.
BickmanL.1971“The effect of social status on the honesty of others”. J. of Social Psychology85: 87–92
10.
BlackD. J.ReissA. J.1970“Police control of juveniles”. Amer. Soc. Rev.35: 63–77
11.
BlumsteinP. W.1974“The honoring of accounts”. Amer. Soc. Rev.39: 551–556
12.
ChamblissW. J.1976“The saints and the roughnecks,” in ChamblissW. J.MankoffM. (eds.) Whose Law? What Order? A Conflict Approach to Criminology. New York: John Wiley
13.
EmersonR. M.1969Judging Delinquents: Content and Process in Juvenile Court. Chicago: Aldine
14.
ExlineR. V.EldridgeC.1967“Effects of two patterns of a speaker's visual behavior upon the authenticity of his verbal message”. Paper presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston. Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, (unpublished)
15.
FooteN. N.1951“Identification as a basis for a theory of motivation”. Amer. Soc. Rev.16: 14–21
16.
GoffmanE.1963Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free Press
17.
HarréR.SecordP. F.1972The Explanation of Social Behavior. Oxford: Blackwell
18.
HoultR.1954“Experimental measurement of clothing as a factor in some social ratings of selected American men”. Amer. Soc. Rev.19: 324–328
19.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H.1966Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
20.
JonesE. E.DavisK. E.1965“From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception,” in BerkowitzL. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press
21.
KalvenH.Jr.ZeiselH.1966The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown
22.
KelmanH. C.HovlandC. I.1953“Reinstatement of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change”. J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology48: 327–335
23.
KleinkeC. L.1977“Effects of dress on compliance to requests in a field setting”. J. of Social Psychology101: 223–224
24.
KnappM. L.1972Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
25.
LefkowitzM.BlakeR.MoutonJ.1955“Status factors in predestrian violation of traffic signals”. J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology51: 704–706
26.
LegantP.1973“The deserving victim: Effects of length of pretrial detention, crime severity, and juror attitudes on simulated jury decisions”. Doctoral dissertation. Yale University
27.
LoflandJ.1969Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
28.
MehrabianA.WilliamsM.1969“Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness”. J. of Personality and Social Psychology13: 37–58
29.
MillsC. W.1940“Situated actions and vocabularies of motive”. Amer. Soc. Rev.5: 904–913
30.
PiliavinI.BriarS.1964“Police encounters with juveniles”. Amer. J. of Sociology70: 206–214
31.
QuineW.V.O.1961From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper & Row
32.
RobinsonD. E.1975“Style changes: Cyclical, inexorable, and foreseeable”. Harvard Business Rev.53: 121–131
33.
RumseyM. G.1976“Effects of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgements”. J. of Applied Social Psychology6: 64–68
34.
SavitskyV. C.CzyzewskiD.DubordD.KaminskyS.1976“Age and emotion of an offender as determinants of adult punitive reactions”. J. of Personality44: 311–320
35.
StavitskyJ. C.SimM. E.1974“Trading emotions: Equity theory of reward and punishment”. J. of Communication24: 140–146
