Parameters of Nonaccommodation: Reﬁ ning and Elaborating Communication Accommodation Theory

Within the framework of communication accommodation theory (CAT), this chapter draws on research in social cognition to develop conceptually and theoretically the construct of non-accommodation, defined as communicative behaviors that are inappropriately adjusted for the participants in an interaction. Drawing upon research on communication as an inference process, a specification and elaboration of the theory’s definition of communication (the “C” in CAT) is proposed. We consider the cognitive processes by which non-accommodation is perceived and evaluated, proposing a model of how perceived intentionality and motive, perspective taking and initial orientation directly and indirectly influence our evaluations of nonaccommodation and related interactional outcomes. PARAMETERS OF NON-ACCOMMODATION 3 Parameters of Non-Accommodation: Refining and Elaborating Communication Accommodation Theory Adjusting for others is a fundamental part of successful interaction. We do not speak to our colleagues in the same way we do our spouses, or our parents in the same way we do to our children; rather, we adapt our communication to our present circumstances. However, and unfortunately, the adjustments we make for each other are not always experienced as adequate or appropriate. Issues with communicative adjustment may take a number of forms across a variety of contexts, and have potentially serious consequences. The prospects for miscommunication are particularly rife when people breach intercultural and intergroup divides (e.g., Dubé-Simard, 1983; Hewstone & Giles, 1986). A lack of adjustment for communicative or behavioral norms in a given context, for example, could lead to speakers committing social or cultural faux pas, resulting in their being labeled as rude, offensive, or worse. More generally, when communicative adjustments are felt to be inappropriate, the interaction is often experienced as dissatisfying and/or problematic (e.g., Williams, 1996). To avoid detrimental outcomes such as these, it is important to understand how poorlyadjusted communication occurs, as well as what determines individuals’ responses to it. Within the framework of communication accommodation theory (CAT: Giles, 1973; Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005; Giles, Willemyns, Gallois, & Anderson, 2007), this chapter seeks to develop conceptually and theoretically the construct of non-accommodation, defined as communicative behaviors that are inappropriately adjusted for the participants in an interaction. With particular consideration for the nature of poorly adjusted communication, we ultimately propose a specification and elaboration of the theory’s definition of communication (the “C” in CAT). We consider the processes by which non-accommodation is perceived and evaluated, proposing a PARAMETERS OF NON-ACCOMMODATION 4 model of how perceived intentionality and motive, perspective taking and initial orientation directly and indirectly influence our evaluations of non-accommodation and related interactional outcomes. Communication Accommodation and Non-Accommodation CAT is premised on the assumption that communication mediates and maintains interpersonal and intergroup relationships (Gallois & Giles, 1998). As such, it seeks to explain speakers’ linguistic and behavioral choices in interaction as they relate to communicative adjustment, and to model how others in the interaction perceive, evaluate, and react to these choices. In short, CAT suggests that speakers come to interactions with an initial orientation, which is informed by such factors as relevant interpersonal and intergroup histories, as well as the prevailing sociohistorical context. In interaction, speakers adjust their communicative behavior based on evaluations of their fellow interactants’ communicative characteristics in context, as well as their desire to establish and maintain a positive personal and social identity (Gallois et al., 2005). Each speaker evaluates and makes attributions about the encounter as well as the other speaker on the basis of their perceptions of that other speaker’s behavior (i.e., adjustments). These attributions and evaluations then affect the quality and nature of the present interaction between these speakers, as well as speakers’ intent to engage in future interaction with each other (see Figure 1). ----Insert Figure 1 here ----Theorizing on CAT has proposed two distinct functions for accommodation: first, managing social distance and related identity concerns (“affective function”), and second, PARAMETERS OF NON-ACCOMMODATION 5 facilitating comprehension (“cognitive function”; see Street & Giles, 1982) (Gallois et al., 2005). Within the first (social regulation) function, a number of more specific social effects of accommodation have been put forward, among them identifying or appearing similar to others, maintaining face, maintaining a relationship, and maintaining interpersonal control as it relates to power or status differentials. Within the second (facilitating comprehension) function, in turn, specific effects include the extent which speakers are understood, and relatedly, how discourse is directed and managed (Gallois, et al., 2005). To fulfill these two functions, there are several different adjustment strategies we can implement (Coupland, et al., 1988; Cretchley, Gallois, Chenery, & Smith, 2010). First, we may adjust or verbal and nonverbal behavior to be more similar to or different from our conversational partners’ (approximation strategies). Recent work on mimicry (for an overview, see Chartrand and van Baaren, 2009) has documented the myriad ways in which individuals unconsciously synchronize their verbal and nonverbal behavior with each other when they interact. Consistent with CAT, this research suggests that people regulate social distance through these adjustments: mimicry (i.e. convergence) has been found to increase empathy, liking, and rapport. Conversely, individuals mimic less when they feel neutral about or seek to (actively) disaffiliate themselves with another (Babel, 2010). We may also adapt the manner in which information is presented with an eye to making it comprehensible in terms of judgments about our audience’s capacities (interpretability strategies). Altering speech rate, the complexity of a message’s lexicon or syntax, volume, tempo, repetition, prosody, and/or content (topic choice) are all potential forms interpretability strategies may take (Giles & Coupland, 1991). While most adjustments along the approximation PARAMETERS OF NON-ACCOMMODATION 6 axis are primarily made non-consciously (e.g., Lineweaver, Hutman, Ketcham, & Bohannon, 2011), interpretability adjustments may also be made consciously. Communicative behavior may also be adapted on a more macro level, as when we adjust our communication to guide the conversation in specific ways (discourse management strategies) through turn management, topic selection, topic sharing, and backchanneling (Cretchley et al., 2010; Shepard, Giles, & LePoire, 2001). Finally, we may make adjustments to address the social dynamics at play in an encounter (interpersonal control strategies); for example, taking actions related to relative power or status differentials (e.g., acting deferential or assuming a leadership style), or behaving in ways associated with formal or institutional roles and their accompanying communicative expectations. When communicative adjustments are made appropriately in the eyes of both interactants, the result is accommodative communication, which is usually (though not always) experienced as successful and positive. However, when they are not seen as crafted appropriately, nonaccommodation is the result. Unpacking Non-Accommodation While some work using CAT chooses to consider actions and outcomes in terms of an accommodative versus non-accommodative dichotomy (e.g., Giles et al., 2007), “nonaccommodation” may in fact describe a variety of perceived behaviors, including divergence, maintenance, overaccommodation, and underaccommodation. Divergence is defined as individuals altering their speech (or communication more generally) to move away and distance themselves from their conversational partners’ communicative habits (e.g., Bourhis, Giles, Leyens, & Tajfel, 1979). Maintenance is the absence of accommodative adjustments by individuals, that is, maintaining their “default” way of communicating without taking into PARAMETERS OF NON-ACCOMMODATION 7 account the characteristics of their fellow interactants. It can, however, be a strategic statement about preserving one’s social identity in certain intergroup contexts (Giles, Reid, & Harwood, 2010) and, as such, is an active statement about not wishing to accommodate (Bourhis, 1979). Overaccommodation, in turn, is defined as the perception that a speaker is exceeding or overshooting the level of a given communicative behavior necessary for a successful interaction. Underaccommodation, finally, is the perception that a speaker is not doing enough to implement a given communication behavior, relative to the level needed or desired by others in the interaction (Coupland et al., 1988). To date, overaccommodation has been the primary focus of research on nonaccommodation. Variants of overaccommodation that have received considerable scholarly attention include patronizing talk (Hummert & Ryan, 2001) and so-called “elderspeak”, the use of overly-simplified speech in interactions with older adults (for an overview of relevant studies, see Giles & Gasiorek, 2011). Overaccommodation’s counterpart, underaccommodation, however, has not received comparable attention. However, and interestingly, there is some evidence that underaccommodation is in fact more prevalent, at least for young adults in a college setting, than a survey of the present CAT literature would suggest. In a recent study by Gasiorek (2010) of American young adults’ experiences of non-accommodation, underaccommodative experiences outnumbered experi