The chapters in this book canvass a wide variety of contexts, and provide a strong sense of how Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) has developed and where it is today (see also, Giles, Gasiorek, & Soliz, Reference Gallois, Giles and Tracy2015). In this final chapter, we aim to look forward and give a sense of where CAT might go. Since its inception, and particularly for the past thirty-plus years, the challenge for CAT has been to maintain coherence while being both comprehensive and useful for scholars using a variety of methodological approaches and in a range of applied contexts. Rather than being a drawback, this challenge is a natural part of any theory’s growth and development. However, it does require attention. Taking into account the research agendas and methodological reviews synthesized for this volume, this final chapter aims to address this challenge and in so doing, provide a guide for both theorizing and empirical research with CAT for the next decade and beyond. In the following sections, we consider the Principles of CAT, then describe some conceptual, methodological, and contextual vistas we see for the theory, highlighting ways in which research using CAT can move forward.
Principles of CAT
Before going further, we believe it is important to revisit the Principles of accommodation (see Chapter 3), as a means to reflect on the major themes and contributions of CAT. The Principles are general, by design, and they capture all the core features and propositions in CAT concisely. That said, in their wording and formulation, they could be seen as prioritizing certain aspects of the theory. First, they emphasize the perceptual and motivational parts of the theory, which have become increasingly prominent over the years. Second, they primarily discuss interactions between individuals, although they certainly attend to the potential influence of salient group identities. Third and finally, the Principles contrast accommodation with nonaccommodation at a fairly abstract level, and thus do not foreground either the various sociolinguistic strategies that underlie much accommodation and nonaccommodation or the differences across types of nonaccommodation, although other papers and many chapters in this volume do so (e.g., Chapters 4–6, 8, & 9; see also Gasiorek & Giles, Reference Gasiorek and Giles2012). A closer examination of the Principles in conjunction with extant CAT research, however, reveals that they do ultimately accommodate perceptions and behavior, interpersonal and intergroup factors, and the various forms that (non)accommodation can take. These three issues are central to the constitution and history of CAT and CAT research; we now address each in more depth.
Perceptions, Motivations, and Behavior. CAT has long moved between a description of what people actually do – that is, how their speech, paralanguage, and nonverbal behavior change toward or away from their interlocutors’ – and what they are trying to do – that is, their psychological motives and intentions – as well as related perceptions of their communication. In part, this reflects the diversity in disciplinary background of people working with the theory; those with a more sociolinguistic bent tend to emphasize behavior, whereas the more psychologically inclined tend to emphasize perceptions and motivations. Some scholars opt to focus on only perceptions, or only behaviors, based on their preference and aims of inquiry (for a discussion of this issue, see Gallois & Giles, Reference Gallois, Giles and Tracy2015).
This diversity of approaches has caused some to query what constitutes “communication” within the theory’s framework. However, this is not an issue unique to CAT; this question has been a source of tension in the whole field of communication at least since Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson’s (Reference Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson1967) assertion that it is impossible not to communicate and, thus, that all interactive behavior counts as communication. Other researchers have been more restrictive in their definitions, going as far as to require intention by a speaker for behavior to count as communicative (for a review of this issue, see Noller, Reference Noller1984). Collectively, researchers using CAT have taken a middle ground, defining communication in terms of what is intended by a speaker, understood by a receiver, and/or which provokes an interpretation, attribution, or evaluation. Thus, communication is a product and function of the participants in an interaction and their perceptions; this perspective is evident in the Principles and in prior propositional models of CAT (e.g., Giles, Willemyns, Gallois, & Anderson, Reference Giles, Willemyns, Gallois, Anderson and Fiedler2007).
Of course, both perceptions and behavior are important. Many studies have shown that perceptions – perceived motive, perceived behavior, and expectations – can be better predictors of people’s evaluations than actual behavior (e.g., Thakerar, Giles, & Cheshire, 1982). This is particularly true in the case of underaccommodation, as this ubiquitous form of communication is ambiguous by its very nature (see Chapter 5). Do people underaccommodate because they want to, because they cannot do otherwise (Principle 3), unintentionally (despite an ability to do otherwise), or for some other reason? Interlocutors’ answer to this question – which may or may not match that of speakers – directs their responses. Perceptions are also central to understanding how people experience and react to overaccommodation: one person’s patronizing communication is another’s normal discourse. The same can be said of accommodation, and even of counteraccommodation (see Chapter 5). The importance of perceptions, beliefs, and motivations is reflected in the fact that they are invoked by all the Principles, and are the central focus of Principles 2, 5, and 7.
Despite the importance of perceptions in understanding people’s reactions to communication in various forms, it would be limiting to assert that actual behavior does not matter. For one thing, it is behavior that people experience as a stimulus for perceptions, and that underlies their perceptions and reactions. Additionally, we are often legally and morally responsible for behavior, regardless of how we (or others) may perceive the behavior. For example, anti-discrimination laws address what people say and do, and not necessarily how the behavior is perceived or the motives for the behavior. Beyond this, there is ample evidence that people mark their identity through the details of their language and nonverbal behavior (e.g., Coupland, Reference Coupland1984), often without either themselves or their interlocutors being aware of it (see Chapters 4, 6, & 9).
Furthermore, CAT has always invoked the important role of tactics, or immediate behavioral responses to what has happened in the preceding conversational turns, in interaction. For example, if an interlocutor unexpectedly interrupts, we may diverge from him or her, often without being aware of doing so, as an automatic way of maintaining the floor and finishing our turn. The importance of actual behavior, in addition to perceptions, is acknowledged in two central Principles, 4 and 6, as well as Principle 3, which focuses on what people say and do in interactions. Beyond this, Chapter 6 proposes a new principle explicitly to encompass behavior in interaction, Principle 8: “The degree and quality of individuals’ accommodation or nonaccommodation in interaction is a function of the interactional dynamics, including turn-by-turn actions, interactional accomplishment of immediate conversational goals, and the (mis)alignment of speakers in terms of the personal and/or social identities negotiated.” Thus, through the Principles, CAT addresses perceptions, behavior, and their interaction.
Intergroup and Interpersonal Dynamics. Since the 1970s, CAT has been quintessentially a theory that balances the interplay between interpersonal and intergroup aspects of communication. The theory accounts for both the ways that intergroup relations are central to many interactions between people (arguably all of them, given the dynamic nature of social identities), and of the ways that speakers surpass intergroup factors to interact in a more idiosyncratic, individualized manner. In this way, CAT goes beyond virtually all other theories of interaction, which concentrate either on intergroup or on interpersonal factors (see Chapter 2). All the Principles put forward in Chapter 3 apply to both group and individual aspects of communication, and seek to account for the dynamic interplay between intergroup and interpersonal factors. Very few interactions have no intergroup aspects, and CAT, unlike most theories of interpersonal communication, brings intergroup history, motives, perceptions, and behavior to the fore (see Chapters 7 & 9).
In the following sections, we highlight connections between accommodation and competent communication, and suggest that CAT may offer an important contribution to this area of work. What differentiates CAT from other theories and programs in communication competence is this simultaneous focus on intergroup and interpersonal dimensions of interaction. Many interpersonal communication theories suggest that communication competence reflects an individual’s abilities to effectively achieve personal and relational goals. As such, various theories lay out – implicitly or explicitly – best practices for individuals, but often ignore the intergroup dimension of social interaction. Some important communication theories, notably anxiety/uncertainty management theory (see Gudykunst, Reference Gudykunst and Gudykunst2005) and identity negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, Reference Ting-Toomey and Gudykunst2005) do address intergroup aspects of communication and the potential tension around group identities, but their focus is still mainly on the individual communicator and how that person reacts intra- and interpersonally. Likewise, there are also well-validated training programs for intergroup encounters, particularly in the intercultural arena. What is lacking is training programs that attend to both interpersonal and intergroup competence, although we see the nascent stages of such programs, for example in work on pain disclosures in medical encounters (McDonald, Gifford, & Walsh, Reference McDonald, Gifford and Walsh2011). CAT has the potential to underpin such programs, as its framework can be used to foreground the edgy relations between intergroup and interpersonal communication (see Dragojevic & Giles, Reference Dragojevic and Giles2014; Gangi & Soliz, Reference 208Gangi, Soliz, Giles and Maass2016).
Nuances of (non)Accommodation. Finally, it is essential to remember that both accommodative and nonaccommodative communication may be enacted for a range of reasons, and take myriad different forms. Several chapters in this volume (see Chapter 5 in particular) make clear the ways that, for example, overaccommodation and underaccommodation are different from each other, in motivation, level of awareness, and reception. They are also different from counteraccommodation, which is probably the least common but the most dramatic form of nonaccommodation. While the Principles do not explicitly differentiate forms of nonaccommodation, they imply this kind of nuance in motivation, behavior, and reactions to behavior. We believe that research on the subtleties of accommodation and nonaccommodation should and will increase in volume and diversity in the coming decades.
Thus, drawing on the Principles in Chapter 3, we emphasize the importance of keeping three points in mind:
CAT is a theory of both behavior and perceptions and motivations. Perceptions drive the ways in which interlocutors try to behave and respond to behavior, but actual behavior underlies perceptions. Thus, it is important to study both.
CAT is a theory of interpersonal and intergroup communication – indeed, most of the contexts described in this book are intergroup, and social identity is likely to be more salient than is personal identity. Nevertheless, the emphasis is still on conversations between people (i.e., interpersonal communication).
Accommodation and nonaccommodation can take a range of different forms. Overaccommodation, underaccommodation, and counteraccommodation are qualitatively different ways of adjusting or attuning to others, and not simply differences of degree in the way nonaccommodative behavior is perceived and responded to. They are all different from accommodation, as well as from each other.
Three Vistas of Accommodation
CAT is an eclectic theory and has always been grounded in its empirical underpinnings. As this book shows, the theory is inextricably linked to the contexts and methodologies in which it is used. Indeed, the concepts in CAT have evolved out of these contexts, contributing to CAT’s dynamic history. As we move forward, we can see a number of issues and challenges to be addressed. In this section, we discuss these issues under the rubric of three “vistas” of accommodation: contextual, methodological, and conceptual.
Contextual Vistas
Many features of the current version of CAT have emerged from the extensive research in interethnic and intercultural encounters, intergenerational interactions (see Chapter 7), as well as communication in healthcare settings (see Chapter 8). This has made it clear that each context has its own intergroup and interpersonal characteristics, its own emphases, and its own sticking points. For example, older adults often – and rightly – complain that they are not treated as adults by those caring for them, and sometimes by members of their own families. In this context, accommodation means moving beyond stereotypes and treating each other as individuals (Ryan, Meredith, MacLean, & Orange, Reference Ryan, Meredith, MacLean and Orange1995). On the other hand, in many health contexts, both clients/patients and health professionals believe that the relevant expertise and identities of all should be recognized, as they are central to the interaction (see Baker & Watson, Reference 207Baker and Watson2015). Indeed, there is no reason to go to doctors or other health professionals unless one needs their expertise (see Chapter 8). In this context, accommodative communication may mean staying in role and operating from social identities, but treating each other with appropriate respect and attention to individual needs. In some intercultural contexts, particularly those where group boundaries are strong (e.g., Ross & Shortreed, Reference Ross and Shortreed1990), it may be most “accommodative” (i.e., communicatively competent in context) to emphasize differences between one’s own culture and the new one – that is, to diverge – as long as this is done with respect and positive tone (Giles, Ota, & Foley, Reference Giles, Ota and Foley2013).
It is arguably time for CAT to theorize the role of context more explicitly, as a number of chapters in this volume do (see in particular, Chapters 7, 8, & 9). The Principles in Chapter 3 move away from context, toward generic statements about accommodation. This is helpful in that people working in different contexts can use the Principles to guide their own work. However, this approach misses how accommodation can vary in and depend on context, as described above. To address this, we believe it could be beneficial to develop ways of categorizing contexts in terms of criteria relevant to accommodation, such as how intergroup they are or how role-driven they are. Because contexts are complex, a simple categorization scheme is likely to be insufficient: those that share some common features along one dimension will likely differ in other ways (see Ehala, Giles, & Harwood, Reference Ehala, Giles, Harwood, Giles and Maass2016, for a model of dimensions in intergroup contexts; see Chapter 7). Regardless of what criteria are used for classification, explicitly identifying features of the context that affect interaction is an important step for CAT researchers to take in their work. Doing so would also provide some methodological conformity across similar studies (see Chapters 4, 6, & 9 for discussion of this issue).
In the future, systematic study of context should enable CAT to make clearer predictions about its operation in different types of contexts (see e.g., Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, Reference Cuddy, Fiske and Glick2008; Ehala et al., Reference Ehala, Giles, Harwood, Giles and Maass2016; Giles & Hewstone, Reference Giles and Hewstone1982). To do this, we believe that theoretically interesting contexts deserve research emphasis, and that researchers can usefully choose to study particular contexts for the benefit of theoretical development. For example, because it is extremely formal and role-driven, and because it provokes anxiety in all players, the police–citizen context has potential to offer new theoretical considerations for CAT that are context driven; courtroom and some other organizational contexts also do this (see Chapter 9). Likewise, family interactions, which can be a more interpersonal context of communication (see, however, Giles & Soliz, Reference Giles, Soliz, Braithwaite and Schrodt2014; Soliz & Rittenour, Reference Soliz, Rittenour and Giles2012), also provide an opportunity for theoretical advancement specific to a relational context (Gangi & Soliz, Reference 208Gangi, Soliz, Giles and Maass2016; Harwood, Soliz, & Lin, Reference Harwood, Soliz, Lin, Brathwaite and Baxter2006 see Chapter 7).
There is another reason that the variety of contexts for the study of accommodation has increased over the years. Put simply, communication makes a difference in people’s lives. Understanding the role of (non)accommodation in various contexts, therefore, provides insight into what may differentiate positive and negative outcomes of interactions, relationships, and social or professional institutions. The early and continuing emphasis on intercultural contexts meets this criterion, as it provides evidence of the link between language, in- and outgroup attitudes, and the self-concept. Health is another such context; many studies have shown the adverse (sometimes life-threatening) outcomes of nonaccommodative communication in hospitals and primary care (see Chapter 8). As Chapter 9 shows, legal and courtroom contexts provide an important, formalized, context in which to study (non)accommodation in terms of both approximation and nonapproximation strategies and behavior. All social-science theories stand or fall on whether they can be applied in real-life contexts, and whether they make a positive difference to social life. Researchers in CAT over the past decades have gravitated to contexts where communication does make a difference (see Soliz & Giles, Reference Soliz, Giles and Cohen2014), and they should concentrate even more on them in the future. This requirement will have a consequent impact on methodology (e.g., research done in the field, use of large corpora and data-bases). In this work, it will be important to focus on behavior as well as motivations and perceptions, and to develop efficient methods for studying behavior and perceptions together. Such efforts may also mean larger-scale projects using mixed methods, and may well involve multi-disciplinary research teams.
Methodological Vistas
Like the theory itself, the methods of CAT are eclectic, and tend to be determined by the research aims and by the disciplinary background of the researchers. Chapters 4 and 6, respectively, discuss in depth the quantitative and qualitative approaches to CAT that have been adopted over the years. In accordance with current pleas for more pluralistic methods (e.g., Shaw & Frost, Reference Shaw and Frost2015), the diversity in methodological approaches is a great strength of CAT research, as it means that it is comprehensive and interdisciplinary. However, the various strands of work on accommodation have existed and developed somewhat independently of each other. Thus, experimental studies tend to cite other experiments; indeed, the meta-analyses of CAT research that have been done (Soliz & Giles, Reference Soliz, Giles and Cohen2014; see also Chapter 4) are by their very nature limited to studies that meet particular quantitative criteria. In the same way, sociolinguistic studies involving microanalysis of behavior tend to cite other such studies, and qualitative researchers also tend to cite each other. There have been exceptions, but only to the extent of seeing both approaches side-by-side in CAT journal issues (Coupland & Giles, Reference Coupland and Giles1988; Giles, Reference Giles1984; Giles et al., Reference Giles, Gasiorek and Soliz2015). Looking ahead, there is capacity to examine the interconnections between approaches more closely. For example, social network analysis, over the past decade, has been used extensively to elucidate connections between academic papers (see Benckendorff & Zehrer, Reference Benckendorff and Zehrer2013, for an example in the interdisciplinary field of tourism); research on CAT could make good use of this type of analysis in the future.
In the past few years, mixed-method studies have begun to appear (e.g., Gasiorek & van de Poel, Reference Gasiorek and Van de Poel2012; Hewett, Watson, & Gallois, Reference Hewett, Watson and Gallois2015). This work, particularly when it involves detailed sociolinguistic, discourse, or conversation analyses, allows for rich and interpretive descriptions of actual behavior in naturally occurring conversations, accompanied by survey or experimental explorations of specific perceptual variables. In addition, qualitative studies of attitudes and perceptions based on interviews can complement quantitative research by fleshing out these aspects of accommodation in speakers’ own words. In this way, the research questions addressed can be robust and broad, and such questions can be explored cogently. It is time for researchers of accommodation to make mixed methods more of a priority, truly integrating quantitative and qualitative designs.
Gnisci, Giles, and Soliz in Chapter 9 (and related work), explain a very interesting way to explore the sequence of sociolinguistic moves in interactions quantitatively. Their method, based on the analysis of corpora of courtroom discourse through coding of behavior in terms of CAT strategies (approximation, discourse management, and interpersonal control in particular), uses sequential analysis of behavior to elucidate accommodation or nonaccommodation and responses to it. For example, they show that hostile questions provoke divergence (more equivocal answers) in some instances (cross-examination) and less so in others (direct examination). This analysis allows researchers to combine features of the larger context with turn-by-turn analysis of behavior, and it has the potential to be generalized to larger sequences of behavior. There is also the potential to expand this work from the very formal courtroom context to more conversational interactions.
The explosion of new software tools for language analysis will also contribute to the expansion of mixed method research. Content analysis tools like Wordsmith, Word Cloud, and LIWC provide quick summary information about the words people use, and some give visual summaries that are easy to understand and use. Concept-based, artificial intelligence tools like Leximancer and Discursis afford, in addition, the capacity to go beyond words per se and analyze concepts that occur together (e.g., in interviews or written texts). Such tools are ideal for guiding researchers about which parts of their texts merit more detailed analysis. These programs, in addition, can assist in both qualitative (e.g., discourse analysis, conversation analysis) work and in quantitative research like the sequential analyses described above (see Chapter 9). Discursis, which is being developed with CAT in mind, adds visualization of conversations turn by turn. It is thus an excellent complement to conversation analysis or discourse analysis. This program is now being used extensively in this way (e.g., Baker et al., Reference Baker, Angus, Smith-Conway, Baker, Gallois, Smith, Wiles and Chenery2015), and it also has the potential to combine qualitative analysis of conversations with summary quantitative information about the same texts through its metrics (e.g., Watson, Angus, Gore, & Farmer, Reference Watson, Angus, Gore and Farmer2015; see also Chapter 8).
In the future, it is likely that tools like these will play a greater role in studies of accommodation, and will allow qualitative work and sociolinguistic microanalyses to be done with larger corpora, which at present is very difficult because of the labor-intensive nature of this work. It is important to remember, however, that these software tools are only that – tools. They allow speedy initial analysis of large texts, but they do not interpret the texts. Researchers must still understand the intricacies of conversation analysis, discourse analysis, and thematic analysis, and must not try to let the tools do the interpretive work for them.
Developments such as these will enhance another aspect of research on CAT that is important for the future: larger-scale work that is more integrative and programmatic. To explore accommodation as it happens in real-life settings, it is essential to work in the field, and to work closely with stakeholders. For example, research about (non)accommodation by police in their encounters with citizens can only be done with the cooperation and insights of both groups involved. Likewise, research in health settings requires the collaboration of health professionals and patients, if it is to explore accommodative attitudes and behavior by all participants in health encounters. This will mean an interdisciplinary approach to research, which needs its own accommodation of the different perspectives and methodologies of the various groups. Interdisciplinary research is in itself an intergroup process, and the Principles of CAT apply to both the studies and those who conduct them.
Finally, CAT is a theory about interactions that are most often dyadic (or more) in nature; however, quantitative CAT research has only in a limited way embraced dyadic analysis as a regular process of inquiry (see, however, Chapter 9). Some but not all qualitative research does look at dyads as such (see Chapter 6). One potentially useful model for CAT researchers is the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM: e.g., Kenny & Ledermann, Reference Kenny and Ledermann2010), which accounts for the bidirectional influences of members in an interactional dyad using data collected from both individuals. Using such models allows us to assess how perceptions or motivations for a speaker’s behavior and that of the partner influence communicative and relational behavior for each individual. Advances in statistical techniques and analysis (see Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, Reference Kenny, Kashy and Cook2006) should generate new questions and types of analysis that will be able to both further test and further develop the propositions and ideas put forth in the preceding chapters.
Conceptual Vistas
Thus far, our discussion has addressed methodological issues and contextual considerations stemming from the vast body of extant research. In this final section, we offer three important conceptual directions for future research with CAT, all of which we believe have significance for our understanding of human relations.
Accommodation as Communication Competence. Intergroup communication researchers, those working within CAT in particular, have been strong critics of traditional training programs in communication competence, as well as of intercultural and interprofessional training programs (see e.g., Cargile & Giles, Reference Cargile, Giles and Burleson1996). This is because such programs have typically emphasized the interpersonal features of communication (see Parcha, Reference Parcha2014) and ignored the intergroup; additionally, such programs usually assume that people are motivated to communicate as effectively as they can. In some cases, however, people’s goals are not cooperative, and can even be anti-social: people may, for example, want to win a zero-sum conflict, or to deprecate another group. In these cases, “competent” communication – that which effectively accomplishes a goal – may actually lead to quite negative outcomes, which is what traditional training programs seek to avoid (see Chapter 9 for some interesting instances of this behavior in law enforcement and courtrooms). Gallois (Reference Gallois2003) argued that in some situations, the better people’s communication skills are, the less positive (and, in terms of most communication competence programs, the less “effective” in a prosocial sense) their communication is. Gallois argued that this is because the intergroup context may be sufficiently negative that members of each group are actually motivated to misunderstand each other: they would rather win the fight than produce a good outcome. In these cases, political or social work must be done before (traditional) communication competence skills training can have much impact.
The watchword of many intergroup communication competence training programs is to break down the silos between individuals and groups (see Peters, Morton, & Haslam, Reference Peters, Morton, Haslam, Giles, Reid and Harwood2010), and/or to communicate openly and honestly. For example, health professionals are encouraged to forget that they are doctors, nurses, or physiotherapists, and to talk to each other as people who want to give the best treatment they can to patients/clients. The aim of such efforts is to transcend social identity and intergroup relations by forming an interpersonal bond, or through recourse to a larger, shared identity (see Pitts & Harwood, Reference Pitts and Harwood2015). This is laudable, but there are many situations in which breaking down silos is not realistic or appropriate, and may even be the worst thing interlocutors can do.
It is important to remember that people often have huge investments in their core social identities. For example, high status positions in many organizations now require advanced qualifications (e.g., medical or legal degrees plus specialized training) and long periods of apprenticeship (e.g., the years academics spend before they receive tenure). The investment in these qualifications cultivates a strongly held sense of professional identity. Such an identity includes commitment to concepts and language norms, as well as knowledge and skills, all of which are often tied to core values (Morton, Wright, Peters, Reynolds, & Haslam, Reference Morton, Wright, Peters, Reynolds, Haslam and Giles2012). It is not surprising that people strive for positive group distinctiveness in these identities, relying strongly on them in times of difficulty or crisis. To be asked to abandon them and to interact as an individual or in terms of a more inclusive social identity (health worker, legal worker) may be highly threatening, as well as unrealistic. If anything, it is essential to build people’s confidence in their identities and ways of communicating within them, so that they are more resilient in conflict or difficult situations.
CAT theorizes this situation comprehensively, and the accommodative strategies outlined in the theory (see Chapter 3) can be a resource for formulating recommendations in various intergroup contexts. For example, in the police–citizen context, the role of the police officer means that he or she must take the lead in accommodation, and must learn to expect fear and hostility from a driver (see Chapters 6 & 9). Accommodation (or nonaccommodation) takes place along multiple dimensions – verbal (language, word choice, register), paraverbal (voice quality, prosody) and nonverbal (facial expression, gesture, posture). Thus, the police officer can maintain his or her role of authority through words, while expressing friendly behavior on nonverbal channels that the driver can reciprocate. If the officer commences the interaction with an accommodative tone, and gives the driver communicative room to move, it is probably not necessary to give the driver physical room to move (which may be threatening to the officer). In addition, if the officer can give the nervous driver reassurance, through nonverbal channels (tone of voice, etc.) or through speaking less formally and without legalese, this is likely to make the driver feel less threatened, and more likely to reciprocate accommodation. If these skills are practiced and routinized, they can become core aspects of the police officer’s ways of communicating, and thus of his or her social identity (see Chapter 7).
In other contexts, different skills are likely to be important. For example, intercultural sojourners may need to understand their temporary identities as visitors (Giles et al., Reference Giles, Ota and Foley2013). In this case, it may be most appropriate and culturally sensitive to diverge strategically to mark their status. For example, one might persist in speaking a standard version of a language, rather than attempting to speak a dialect reserved for locals (e.g., Pidgin in Hawaiʻi; Marlow & Giles, Reference 209Marlow and Giles2008). At the same time, sojourners can learn to express respect and admiration for the new culture, perhaps nonverbally (especially if they do not speak the host language). Thus, it is important for trainers in intergroup communication competence to use the Principles of CAT to do the following:
Analyze the training situation via CAT in intergroup and interpersonal terms – what is the history, what are influential current events, what are the main goals, what are the relevant stereotypes?
Foreground the nature of the context – is it more or less intergroup, more or less hierarchical, formal, or role-related?
Highlight the most relevant sociolinguistic strategies in this context – is approximation (i.e., convergence or divergence) important, or even relevant? Which of the nonapproximation strategies are implicated, and how?
Train in perceiving and interpreting others’ behavior, and in drawing lessons for future interactions.
In this way, training programs can be theory-based, and can emphasize moving across silos (or group identities) with appropriate respect and understanding, rather than trying to eliminate them. Such programs can also emphasize ways to learn about other groups’ values, motivations, knowledge and ways of thinking, and ways of communication during the course of an interaction. Doing so would provide participants with the “tools” to understand how to further fine-tune or hone their communication over time. Of course, theory-based programs like these should still look at basic communication skills, and highly desired topics like dealing with conflict and working with difficult people. However, with this approach they can do so through a nuanced look at all aspects of the encounter, not only the immediate interpersonal ones. CAT is ideally suited to this task.
Biophysical Underpinnings of Accommodation. Recent years have seen an increase in the exploration of the biological and neurological underpinnings of interpersonal communication (for overviews, see Afifi, Reference Afifi2015; Floyd & Afifi, Reference Floyd, Afifi, Knapp and Daly2011). Research has shown that certain communicative acts, such as affection and social support, are associated with neuroendocrine activity (e.g., cortisol and oxytocin levels) that physiologically protects the body from stress (Floyd & Riforgiate, Reference Floyd and Riforgiate2009). Relatedly and intriguingly, O’Donnell, Falk, and Lieberman (Reference O’Donnell, Falk and Lieberman2015) have linked the synchronization of communication with neural activity and relational outcomes, citing CAT and other models of linguistic synchrony (see Chapter 2).
O’Donnell et al. (Reference O’Donnell, Falk and Lieberman2015) found, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), that framing an idea by adopting words that are associated with social interaction (e.g., friends, family, yours) triggers activity in the temporoparietal junction in the brain. Such neural work is claimed to be associated with “mentalizing,” or the capacity to relate to the mental states of others. It also appears that this influences participants’ own communication. As described by the authors, “increased mentalizing while being exposed to and encoding a novel idea makes it more likely that in subsequently describing the idea to others, individuals will use [more] social words to frame their description” (p. 50). Hence, it is conceivable that an interpersonal history of expressing and receiving accommodation leads not only to mutual trust (Nettle & Dunbar, Reference Nettle and Dunbar1997) and relational health, but also to different mental and communication patterns by those involved. In this way (and with respect to overaccommodative (patronizing) communications, see Hehman & Bugental, Reference Hehman and Bugental2015), a question arises: could expressing and receiving accommodation lead to visible neuroendocrine activity (e.g., changes in cortisol and oxytocin levels), either in interaction or over time? Moreover, would such interpersonal accommodation also lend itself to an identifiable neural signature?
Recently, neuroscientific advances and methods have also begun to appear more prominently in the study of intergroup relations (e.g., Forbes, Reference Forbes2015; Page-Gould & Akinola, Reference Page-Gould and Akinola2015), with potential payoffs on the horizon for intergroup communication as well (see Clément, Bielajew, & Sampasivam, Reference Clément, Bielajew, Sampasivam, Giles and Maass2016; Rauchbauer, Majdandžić, Hummer, Windischberger, & Lamm, in press). For instance, victory for vested sports fans over rival teams can not only elevate their self-esteem and be construed as a personal success (Giles & Stohl, in press), but can also activate the pleasure center in the brain (Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, Reference Cikara, Botvinick and Fiske2011). Hence, would seeing valued peers diverge from a members of disdained groups lead to neural activity in areas of the brain associated with reward processing, such as in the ventral striatum (Fiske, Reference Fiske2012)? Relatedly, would the adverse affective reactions to being a recipient of counter- or underaccommodation be associated with, or be the precursor to, neural activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region associated with pain and punishment? The bi-directional effects of biophysiological and neurological activities (e.g., neural synchrony; Weber, Popova, & Mangus, Reference Weber, Popova, Mangus and Tamborini2012), in relation to interpersonal accommodation-nonaccommodation, hold exciting prospects for the further innovative development of CAT.
Accommodation in the Digital Age. Technological advancements in computer-mediated communication and the new interactional processes and norms of our increasingly digital age warrant attention from CAT researchers. As we communicate more and more via electronic media – which by their nature shape what kind of cue information is available, and also have their own norms – what constitutes appropriate and accommodative communication becomes increasingly mutable. Further, many of our communication platforms constrain the messages (e.g., Twitter’s character limits). Here, CAT could be a resource for understanding what communicating “competently” looks like as we move between media. We might also consider how our ability to accommodate is influenced by the constraints or structural elements of the social network platforms we use. Given the various ways of communicating in today’s digital age (face to face, email, text, social media) and individual variations in preferences, will communication mode become a more significant aspect of perceiving, understanding, and/or responding to (non)accommodation in context?
A second issue raised by digital technology concerns the nature of a message’s audience. As Pfister (Reference Pfister2014) notes, many of our social networking platforms move the context from dyadic or one-to-many communication to “many-to-many” interactions. Our communication is received and, thus, perceived often by audiences unknown. Likewise, we have little control over our messages once they are “out there.” How do accommodative motives – actual or inferred – and relevant outcomes (e.g., evaluations of the speaker) operate in a context in which mass unintended audiences are both recipients and potentially owners (i.e., through retweeting or reposting) of messages (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Gamon, & Dumais, Reference Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Gamon and Dumais2011)?
Finally, as we see in Chapter 4, many of the more recent quantitative studies employing CAT are focusing on human-computer communication, reflecting the increased frequency of our “interactions” with machines, including automated voice systems, chatbots, and (increasingly) robots. Can a robot or automated voice system be under- or overaccommodative? Are a person’s reactions to these systems influenced by perceptions of “intentions” in the same way they can be in an interaction with another person (see Spence, Westerman, Edwards, & Edwards, 2015)? Do we give a machine a “pass” for being a machine, or react in the same way as we would to another human? These will all be questions for future research; such questions will also evolve further as technology evolves.
Conclusions
CAT began with a basic question: how do people adjust their speech in interaction, particularly as a means to indicate their attitudes toward their interlocutors? It soon added the notion of the social group to this explication of individual behavior, and became the intergroup theory of interpersonal communication that it is today. Over the past forty or more years, CAT has grown in conceptual, methodological, and contextual complexity, but this added complexity has not changed the theory’s core goal of understanding the nature of human communication, its antecedents, and its consequences. What will CAT look like when it reaches fifty years of research, in the not-too-distant future?
The chapters in this volume, as well as the issues raised in this chapter, offer several indications. First, they point to more focus on accommodation that makes a difference, and on exploring the difference that communication accommodation makes to other aspects of social relations. Over the years, CAT has focused increasingly on interactions between members of longstanding groups like those based on age, gender, culture, and the like, as well as on intergroup interactions within institutions or organizations, like those in health, police, law, and so forth. Other chapters highlight the impact on health care, intercultural communication, and family and other relationships that (non)accommodation has. Across its history, research using CAT has also become larger in scale, more multi-disciplinary, and more applied in focus. We expect this trend to continue and increase in the future.
Along with this emphasis on making a difference, there will be a stronger focus on intergroup communication competence. CAT has the potential, through understanding accommodation and nonaccommodation, to improve communication in many contexts. Scholars are already developing training programs grounded in CAT, and such programs have the potential to add an important dimension to communication competence. They may also lead to surprising insights. The present record of communication competence training programs in producing improvements in communication and interaction is mixed, and the addition of the foci of CAT should improve the track record.
In the future, we will see more and more studies that combine the insights of CAT with cutting-edge research in other parts of the human sciences. Thus, there will be more work on new and emerging digital communication media, and on para-social and para-human interactions. Understanding the role of the audience in digital communication is paramount in this work, and we expect the next iterations of CAT to theorize it explicitly. Finally, we expect CAT to incorporate more intrapersonal aspects of communication – both physiological and cognitive – into its propositions.
The Principles of CAT presented in Chapters 3 and 6 focus on aspects of accommodation observed across situations. While this provides a useful foundation, we also believe that, as research contexts proliferate, scholars should attend to both what is common and what differs across all contexts, media, and forms of communication. Accommodation will take different forms, and understanding what these look like will provide us with a richer picture and deeper understanding of social interaction. However, we anticipate that despite superficial differences in what accommodation looks like, we will see the same fundamental relationships and interplay between identity, perceptions, and behavior outlined in the theory’s Principles. Research on CAT should and will make use of them as it expands even further over the next decade.
