Linguistic nonimmediacy refers to the degree of verbal indirectness with which a person refers to himself or to that about which he communicates. Mehrabian's (1966b, 1967a) research indicates that the greater this indirectness of verbal reference in a message, the greater the negative attitude attributed by a reader to the communicator of the message toward his referent. The purpose of this investigation was to test the reliability of this finding using samples of extended discourse collected in a naturalistic setting. The results of the previous research were replicated. Implications of the findings were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnthonyS.Immediacy and nonimmediacy: Factors in communicating interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 141–142.
2.
CarmichaelC. W.CronkhiteG. L.Frustration and language intensity. Speech Monographs, 1965, 32, 107–111.
3.
ConvilleR.Language, communication, and sociolinguistics. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America summer meeting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 3, 1973.
4.
ConvilleR.Linguistic nonimmediacy and communicators' anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 1107–1114.
5.
FeinbergL. B.Nonimmediacy in verbal communication as an indicator of attitudes toward the disabled. Journal of Social Psychology, 1971, 84, 135–140.
6.
GottliebR.WienerM.MehrabianA.Immediacy, discomfort-relief, and content in verbalizations about positive and negative experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 266–274.
7.
HarmsL. S.Status cues in speech: Extra-race and extra-region identification. Lingua, 1963, 12, 300–306.
8.
LabovW.The logic of nonstandard English. In WilliamsF. (Ed.), Language and poverty. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co., 1970. Pp. 153–189.
9.
McEwenW. J.GreenbergB. S.The effects of message intensity on receiver evaluations of source, message and topic. Journal of Communication, 1970, 20, 340–350.
10.
MehrabianA.Differences in the forms of verbal communication as a function of positive and negative affect experience. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Clark Univer., 1964.
11.
MehrabianA.Attitudes in relation to the forms of communicator-object relationship in spoken communications. Journal of Personality, 1966, 34, 80–93. (a)
12.
MehrabianA.Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in linguistic communication. Journal of Personality, 1966, 34, 26–34. (b)
13.
MehrabianA.Attitudes inferred from neutral verbal communication. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 414–417. (a)
14.
MehrabianA.Attitudes inferred from nonimmediacy of verbal communications. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 294–295. (b)
MehrabianA.WienerM.Non-immediacy between communicator and object of communication in a verbal message. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, 420–424.
17.
MehrleyR. S.McCroskeyJ. C.Opinionated statements and attitude intensity as predictors of attitude change and source credibility. Speech Monographs, 1970, 37, 47–52.
18.
MillerG. R.BaseheartJ.Source trustworthiness, opinionated statements and response to persuasive communication. Speech Monographs, 1969, 36, 1–7.
19.
MoeJ. D.Listener judgments of status cues in speech: A replication and extension. Speech Monographs, 1972, 39, 144–147.
20.
PaivioA.A study of stage fright. Unpublished Master's thesis, McGill Univer., 1957.
PaivioA.Personality and audience influence. In MaherB. A. (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp. 127–173.
23.
PaivioA.LambertW. E.Measures and correlates of audience anxiety (“stage fright”). Journal of Personality, 1959, 27, 1–17.
24.
WatzlawickP.BeavinJ. H.JacksonD. D.Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton, 1967.
25.
WienerM.MehrabianA.Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
