Social Psychology Practical 02

1. Social Psychology Practical 02 Analysis of Equivocation (assessed) Jane Clarbour Christian von Wagner

2. Overview • The experiment • Eight mini conversations • Equivocation is… • The Situational theory of Communicative Conflict • Additional variables • Social • Personality • The hypothesis • The data analysis • The write up

3. The experiment • You work on eight mini scenes. Each scene depicts a hypothetical conversation between you and another person. The conversation will lead to a question posed to you. Formulate an answer in writing. The answer should resemble a spoken reply, i.e. it should be phrased in active rather than passive voice.

5. The evaluation of your answers • Content (Does the reply make sense?) • Sender (To what extent is the reply the sender’s own opinion?) • Receiver (To what extent does the reply address the other person in the situation?) • Context (To what extent does the reply address the question?)

6. Problems with this measure • Some of the aspects measured in this four dimensional space lack complexity when evaluating written responses from dyadic interactions • Depending on the presence or absence of certain words the meaning of the utterance will change the meaning of a reply in a qualitative rather than quantitative way. • The dimensional approach demands a lot of training • For this study we will offer the choice between five fully formulated options describing various levels of explicitness and completeness. The descriptions concern the clarity of the reply (i.e. the content dimension as well as the extent to which it address the question (i.e. the context dimension).

7. To what extent were your replies direct, clear and informative? Rate as 1 when… • The answer does not address the question at all. • It completely ignores the topic of the question. • It may use someone else’s opinion, discuss someone else’s performance, or be directed at someone other than the person who asked the question. • The answer may be a complete lie.

8. More descriptions Rate as 2 when… • The answer touches on some relevant aspects. • It may be very short and lack elaboration and therefore be very ambiguous (e.g. “OK”, “Alright” etc.). • Therefore while overtly addressing the question the the reply may raise more questions than it answers and can not be considered responsive.

9. Cont’d. Rate as 3 when… • The answer addresses the question and formulates a whole sentence. • The flow of the information is disjointed by using conflicting and contradicting information. • The answer consists of qualifiers such as, …but…, …however…, nevermind..,). • There is no clear sense what the meaning of the answer is.

10. Cont’d. Rate as 4 when… • The answer is clear and complete. • It seems stereotypical, i.e. it represents a standard response one would expect to hear under the given circumstances. • For situations in which the sender’s own face is threatened, the reply may make a lot of references to other people, or past events. • For situations in which the receiver’s face is threatened the reply may be using self references (“I would have…”) and thus not directly apply to the receiver • The answer may understate the truth, i.e. marginalise issues (it was not too bad). • It should however be more elaborate than simply saying (“It was alright.”)

11. Finally, Rate as a 5 when… • The answer is clear and complete. • The information conveyed is highly personalised and formulated in a sensitive and skilled way without understating or coding over critical issues. • For situations in which the sender’s own face is threatened it conveys a lot of honesty without being overly harsh or self critical. • In a situation in which the receiver’s face is threatened it conveys useful and helpful information without intimidating or humiliating the receiver.

12. Points about the categories • The categories will be treated as ordinal data • The answer will thus receive scores between 1 and 5.

13. Scoring • Give your answers to your neighbour (swop). • Score your neighbour’s answers. • Assign a score (1 – 5) for each of the answers and enter on the Record Sheet. • Return answers and Record Sheet to your neighbour. • Bring your record sheet to the front with your ID number written on.

14. Equivocation is (…) • The intentional use of ambiguity • It occurs in response to avoidance-avoidance conflicts • It is a socially constrained behaviour as it violates generally accepted principles of communication (i.e. the maxim of clarity and co-operativeness)

15. Situational Theory of Communicative Conflict • Bavelas et al (1990) pointed out that an avoidance-avoidance conflict characterised by the inappropriateness of direct communication as • A direct truth would offend, hurt, embarrass both sender and receiver • A direct lie would jeopardise the relationship between sender and receiver.

16. The face analogy • Bavelas et al (1990) did not systematically distinguish between threats to the sender or the receiver. The role of face in communication • Applications from political communication • The three faced politician (Bull, 1996) • The importance of specifying the cause behind an avoidance-avoidance conflict: • It is possible that different types of threats interact differently with additional social dynamics of the situation i.e. a man might not be concerned about the feelings of another man, whereas he may be more sensitive when talking to a woman. On the other hand in cases whether the own face is threatened men may not discriminate between the gender of the receiver.

17. Situations in which the truth would primarily threaten the receiver • For example… • You have noticed that your good friend Harry does not always take enough care of himself and smells sometimes. He is now about to rush off to a date with a woman he says he really likes. You notice that he could do with a shower, when he turns to you and asks: “What would you think if I was your date?”

18. Situations in which the truth would primarily threaten the sender • For example… • You are sitting in an interview for a job you really want when the interviewer starts to talk about previous work experience. So far you have been sacked from all positions in no less than a fortnight. He asks: “Tell me something about your work experience?”

19. The within-subjects variable • Threats to the sender (the self) • Scenarios (1 – 4) • Threats to the receiver (the other person) • Scenarios (5 - 8)

20. Gender • The gender of the sender • Women make a more accommodating and polite impression than men (Bull, 2002) • Women are more relational oriented, men are more control oriented • Women self disclose more (Dindia & Allen, 1992) • Women lie to spare their partner’s feelings rather than to save their own face (Camden et al, 1984) • The gender of the receiver • Communication with the opposite sex is perceived as more complicated • Both men and women tend to tell more lies to women rather than men (De Paulo, 1996)

21. The role of personality • Basic social skills (SSI; Riggio et al, 1987) • Nonverbal components (15 items per subscale) • Emotional sensitivity • Emotional expressivity • Emotional control • 5 response options • Verbal components (15 items per subscale) • Social sensitivity • Social expressivity • Social control • 5 response options

22. Grouping criteria for between-Ss variable • Sum of verbal scores • Social Sensitivity + Social Expressivity + Social Control = Sum of verbal scores • Low scoring group <143 (N=32) • Medium scoring group 144<159 (N=32) • High scoring group >159 (N=31) • Note that we used the same criteria for males and females

23. The hypothesis • There should be a difference between the answers made in response to scenarios in which a direct reply primarily threatened the sender (the self) and those in which a direct reply primarily threatened the receiver (the other) • Main effect of type of conflict [self/other]

24. The hypothesis2 • The answers of participants of high verbal skills should have received higher ratings than those of participants with low social skills • Main effect of group [high/med/low].

25. The hypothesis3 • There may be an interaction between the two types of scenarios and the three groups of participants. • The high scoring group may have produced higher scores in scenarios which primarily concerned themselves (higher ratings), while using more understatements for situations which primarily concerned the other person (lower ratings). • The low scorers (while generally producing less direct responses) may have produced more direct responses in scenarios that primarily concerned the other person (higher ratings), and be more equivocal about themselves (even lower ratings).

26. The mock analysis • Perform a 2 way ANOVA • Within factor: self and other • Between subjects factor: Verbal social skills • Main effects • No within subjects effect :F (1,92)=5.07;p<.05 • Between subjects effect F (2,92)=44.3; p<.01 • Interaction • A significant interaction: F (2, 92)=24.5; p<.01 • Use the means for both groups to describe this interaction

27. Verbal social skills X Type of conflict High scores = clear response Low scores = equivocation

28. The write up • First and foremost ALL reports should be in an acceptable format!!!!! You MUST use FONT 12 and double ( or 1 ½) spacing. • The margins should NOT be in any way adjusted or modified from the usual format. In other words there should be plenty of room for comments on the side. The report should NOT be squeezed or squashed as this substantially hinders the marking process. Messing with the presentation of your report will ALWAYS leave a bad impression, and may result in penalties or details being overlooked.

29. The abstract • Summarise the method and purpose of the study • Stress the comparison between two different kinds of conflict, and the personality measure used • Briefly state the number of scenes and the number of participants, the mode of response and the way replies were being evaluated • Summarise the results (i.e. whether or not they supported the hypothesis) • State the implication in terms of the completeness of the Situational Theory of Communicative Conflict

30. The introduction • Outline the Situational Theory of Communicative Conflict (Bavelas et al, 1990). • Use an example of an avoidance-avoidance conflict and explain how direct replies may result in negative consequences. • Review Bavelas et al’s findings, summarise the experiments, different modes of responses used. • Summarise their conclusions (i.e. a purely situational explanation).

31. Introduction II • Outline Riggio’s (1987) measurement of social skills in the SSI • Suggest hypotheses following directly from the evidence you used in the introduction

32. The method • Give details on participants (2nd year psychology students = N; gender) • Materials: • explain the verbal social skills scale (how many items, what response options) • Explain the rating scale • Design: Note the between and within subjects factors • Procedure: Verbally summarise instructions, the administration of the SSI and the task you have just completed including the rating of responses

33. The results • Report the nature of the data used (i.e. personality, equivocation scores) • Report how the groups were established • Report the mean and standard deviations for the between subjects variable you were interested in (i.e. the personality variable) • Present your results in both a table and a graph.

34. Results2 • Report the results from the 2 way ANOVA using the personality variable in addition to the within subject factor • The aim of this is to see whether there is a difference between responses to the two different types of conflict • And/or a difference between the groups • And/or a possible interaction i.e. that both groups differ in the way they respond to the different type of conflict • Use a verbal summary to link the results to the hypothesis

35. The discussion • Review the implication of the results (i.e. this experiment did/did not support X or Y) • Relate to back to introduction • Talk about alternative explanations for the results • (e.g. limitations/ambiguities) • Suggest new experiments • Improving the current design and replicate • To built on the last finding • Conclusion • Summarise finding and implication

36. Analysing YOUR data • You will be sent the actual data by email as a SPSS data file attachment. • ( You will need to ensure we have your email address) • You should carry out the analysis on this data in exactly the same way as in the practical • DO NOT use the results from today’s mock analyses (this was dummy data). Your data will be different! • If you use the mock analysis results, you will not gain any credit for the results section.