As the previous chapters have shown, communication adjustment can take a wide variety of forms. In many cases, such accommodation serves to facilitate interaction and improve social relations. However, the adjustments individuals make for each other can also serve to hamper positive interaction and/or increase the social distance between participants. This “dark side” of communication adjustment is referred to as nonaccommodation, and is the focus of this chapter. In what follows, I first delineate how nonaccommodation has been conceptualized throughout the history of communication accommodation theory (CAT), with an emphasis on how various conceptualizations offer different lenses for understanding communication behavior in interaction. Next, I discuss sources of nonaccommodation, what effects nonaccommodation can have on interactants, and how people manage and respond to various forms of it. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of issues and opportunities for research in this area.
Conceptualizing Nonaccommodation
In some senses, the term “nonaccommodation” could be seen as a misnomer: to the extent that “accommodation” refers to adjustments people make to their communication, it seems logical that “nonaccommodation” should refer to an absence of adjustment. Although this can be the case, it is not necessarily so. Indeed, several widely used conceptualizations of nonaccommodation do involve speakers’ adjusting their communication; what distinguishes these adjustments from “accommodation” is that there is typically some element of disaffiliation, dissimilarity and/or disconfirmation enacted, sought or resulting from nonaccommodation. To date, scholars have used the term “nonaccommodation” as a general label for several distinct constructs, encompassing both speakers’ communicative behaviors and intentions (as in divergence, maintenance, and particular forms of interpretability, discourse management, interpersonal control, and emotional expression strategies), as well as listeners’ perceptions of those communicative behaviors (as in overaccommodation and underaccommodation).
Speaker-Focused Constructs
Divergence is a construct from early CAT (then, speech accommodation theory) work, and consists of individuals altering their communication to accentuate verbal and nonverbal differences to their interlocutor (e.g., Bourhis & Giles, Reference 101Bourhis, Giles and Giles1977; Bourhis, Giles, Leyens, & Tajfel, Reference Bourhis, Giles, Leyens, Tajfel, Giles and Clair1979). As delineated by Thakerar, Giles, and Cheshire (Reference Thakerar, Giles, Cheshire, Fraser and Scherer1982), divergence (and convergence; see Chapter 3) may be considered in either linguistic or psychological terms. Linguistic divergence refers to speakers’ communicative behavior: that is, speakers’ altering observable qualities of their speech (or nonverbal behavior) to be different or distinct from that of their interlocutors. Linguistic divergence can be understood as objective or subjective: objective linguistic divergence refers to communication behavior that can be observed or measured independently by a third party. Subjective linguistic divergence refers to speakers’ beliefs about their speech behavior (of which they may or may not be conscious; see Chapter 2). Psychological divergence refers to speakers’ social desires and motivations with respect to the interaction: that is, speakers altering their speech with the goal of disaffiliating or creating social distance from their interlocutors. At an interpersonal level, this could be to convey antipathy for another person as an individual. At an intergroup level, this may be to establish one’s ingroup as positively distinct (cf. Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, Reference Giles, Bourhis, Taylor and Giles1977; Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986) and to distinguish oneself as a (proud) member of that group. Indeed, in situations of intergroup competition, divergence from an outgroup member can be judged more favorably than convergence (e.g., Doise, Sinclair, & Bourhis, Reference Doise, Sinclair and Bourhis1976).
Thakerar and colleagues (Reference Thakerar, Giles, Cheshire, Fraser and Scherer1982) consider linguistic and psychological divergence (and convergence) to be orthogonal. As such, one can have communication that is both psychologically and linguistically divergent: in Bourhis et al.’s (Reference Bourhis, Giles, Leyens, Tajfel, Giles and Clair1979) study of language attitudes in Belgium, for example, some Flemish students responded to a threating statement from a Walloon (French-speaking) interlocutor by switching from English (which was the agreed-upon “neutral” language of interaction) to Flemish. By shifting away from the language of the interlocutor (and of “neutral” agreement) and into their native language, these students were expressing their pride and positive distinctiveness as Flemish speakers.
However, communication may also be linguistically divergent but psychologically convergent. In some situations, particularly those with clear status differences between speakers, communication that is objectively different (i.e., linguistically divergent) is both expected and desired, and may be a means to affiliate with others, convey liking or respect, or facilitate comprehension. Examples of this include different speech styles by superiors and subordinates (e.g., Thakerar et al., Reference Thakerar, Giles, Cheshire, Fraser and Scherer1982), or by men and women in conversation (e.g., Namy, Nygaard, & Sauerteig, Reference Namy, Nygaard and Sauerteig2002). Indeed, when attracted to the opposite sex, men often lower their pitch, while women raise their pitch. Linguistically, these acts are divergent. However, enacted to convey (and engender) interest, this communication could be considered psychologically convergent.
Finally, communication that is linguistically convergent may be psychologically divergent. One example of this is mimicry with the intent to mock: in this case, mimicked speech is objectively similar to that of an interlocutor, but the underlying motive is to convey disrespect and/or deride one’s interlocutor. Another example is code-switching in intergroup encounters: in some cases, speakers will converge to an outgroup’s language as a means to prevent outgroup members from speaking the ingroup language (e.g., Woolard, Reference Woolard1989). Although this is linguistically convergent behavior, the goal is to underscore intergroup boundaries, and as such it can be seen as psychologically divergent.
Maintenance is also a construct from early CAT work (see Bourhis, Reference Bourhis, Giles and Saint-Jacques1979), and refers to the absence of accommodation to or for an interlocutor, as when a speaker continues communicating in their “default” style. Examples of maintenance include an Anglophone speaker continuing to speak English when asked a question in French (e.g., Bourhis, Reference Bourhis1984; Bourhis, Montaruli & Amiot, Reference Bourhis, Montaruli and Amiot2007), or speakers persisting in discussing a certain topic or using a particular form of address (e.g., a first name or nickname) regardless of the wishes of their interlocutors (cf. Ryan, Hummert, & Boich, Reference 104Ryan, Hummert and Boich1995).
As outlined in Chapter 3, communication adjustment has also been conceptualized in terms of speakers’ aims or goals relative to their target. In research using this conceptualization, speakers’ intentions and resultant communicative behavior are characterized in terms of different accommodative strategies (Coupland, Coupland, Giles, & Henwood, Reference Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood1988). Approximation strategies attend to the similarity of communication to that of an interlocutor; linguistic divergence and maintenance are considered nonaccommodative moves, in terms of approximation. Interpretability strategies focus on a target’s comprehension of a message. Adjustments that make a message more difficult to understand (e.g., speaking a language an interlocutor does not know, using unfamiliar jargon, speaking quickly) are considered nonaccommodative moves, in terms of interpretability. Discourse management strategies attend to macro-conversational needs; communicative behavior that makes it more difficult for interlocutors to participate in the conversation (e.g., preventing interlocutors from taking speaking turns, discussing topics that are inappropriate or unknown to them) is considered a nonaccommodative move, in terms of discourse management. Interpersonal control strategies focus on relative status and social roles in interaction. Communicating in ways that convey (illegitimate) status or disempower other speakers (e.g., using particular forms of address to exert power or remind speakers of their subordinate position) is considered nonaccommodative, in terms of interpersonal control. Finally, emotional expression strategies address interlocutors’ feelings; communication that ignores, delegitimizes or otherwise hurts fellow interactants’ feelings is considered nonaccommodative, in terms of emotional expression.
Conceptually and empirically, all of these conceptualizations of nonaccommodation focus on the speakers and their communicative behavior or related intentions. Although a considerable amount of research invoking these conceptualizations examines listeners’ reactions to speaker’s adjustments (for an overview, see e.g., Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, Reference Giles, Coupland, Coupland, Giles, Coupland and Coupland1991), studies generally consider the listener’s response as a dependent variable (i.e., outcome). How listeners experience, perceive, and interpret speakers’ communicative behaviors is not integral to the conceptualization of divergence or maintenance, or of other accommodative strategies; these constructs center on the speaker. On the other hand, the listener’s perspective is essential to the newer constructs of over- and underaccommodation.
Listener-Focused Constructs
The constructs of over- and underaccommodation originate in research by Coupland et al. (Reference Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood1988) on problematic communication in intergenerational encounters. This work highlighted how social and sociopsychological “triggers,” in combination with speakers’ interactional goals can lead to speakers’ enacting communicative behavior that recipients evaluate as inappropriate or problematic. Overaccommodation is defined as communication behavior perceived to overshoot or exceed the level of implementation necessary for a successful interaction. Examples of overaccommodation include young adults using high volume, simplified vocabulary and syntax, and a slow speech rate when speaking older adults who are mentally and physically healthy (i.e., engaging in what is construed as patronizing talk; Ryan et al., Reference 104Ryan, Hummert and Boich1995); or college students (mis)using complex syntax and excessively long words in term papers, in an effort to sound “academic.” Underaccommodation is defined as communication behavior perceived to be undershoot the level of implementation desired for successful interaction (Coupland et al., Reference Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood1988). Examples of underaccommodation include a native speaker talking too quickly for a language learner to follow, or a speaker providing an explanation filled with jargon that a listener does not know (and therefore cannot understand).
In contrast to divergence and maintenance, which are conceptualized in terms of speakers’ behavior and intentions, over- and underaccommodation are defined by listeners’ perceptions of what a speaker does. Indeed, speakers may converge linguistically (e.g., by slowing down their speech rate to match that of a slower speaker, or adopting an accent that mimics their interlocutors’), but be perceived as over- or underaccommodative if listeners do not feel these adjustments are appropriate, given the interactional circumstances. As such, over- and underaccommodation are thus inherently subjective and contextualized. These two constructs are more recent additions to CAT’s framework, and have played a central role in an extensive program of CAT-based research on intergenerational communication practices, among other applied areas (see Chapter 7).
Connecting Conceptualizations
Collectively, these conceptualizations can be seen as representing two distinct approaches to understanding nonaccommodation: one focused on the speaker and another focused on the recipient. With these differing foci, a given interaction could be studied using both perspectives. Examining communication through the two lenses together provides insight into the intricacies of communication adjustment specifically, as well as social interaction more broadly. In what follows, the focus is the interplay between linguistic and psychological divergence and over- and underaccommodation. Depending on the context and speakers’ goals and foci, these could be enacted in terms of any of the accommodative strategies outlined earlier.
First, as one would logically expect, communication that is, per its speaker, linguistically and/or psychologically divergent can be experienced as either over- or underaccommodative (i.e., perceptually nonaccommodative). An Anglophone speaker persisting in speaking English when faced with a question asked in French will likely be seen as underaccommodative (i.e., not adjusting enough) by the Francophone petitioner. Similarly, when an older adult makes a query in “normal adult” language and receives a patronizing reply (e.g., loud, slow speech with sing-song prosody and simplified syntax and vocabulary), he or she will likely view that speaker as overaccommodative (and have a negative reaction to this talk; see later).
However, communication that is, per its speaker, linguistically or psychologically divergent can also be experienced as appropriately adjusted. For example, if a listener considers their interlocutor to be a disliked outgroup member, they may prefer to maintain or even emphasize differences in their communication styles: in a competitive intergroup encounter, each speaker may play up their accent or distinct way of speaking, but see this as a rightful expression of current intergroup relations and desired social distance (e.g., Doise et al., Reference Doise, Sinclair and Bourhis1976). To the extent that each speaker considers these divergent communication behaviors appropriate, they may be perceived as neither over- nor underaccommodative.
In short, a given communication behavior could considered in terms of (a) its linguistic features (i.e., is it linguistically convergent or divergent); (b) speakers’ intentions (i.e., is it psychologically convergent or divergent; what accommodative strategies are being pursued); or (c) listeners’ perceptions (i.e., is it accommodative, overaccommodative or underaccommodative). Additionally, depending on contextual factors, the same communication behavior could also be interpreted as differentially accommodative or nonaccommodative by different listeners. A younger adult’s use of “dear” to address an older adult, for instance, may be experienced as overaccommodative and demeaning by a cognitively active older adult, but as accommodative and caring by a frail, dependent older adult (e.g., Ryan & Cole, Reference Ryan, Cole, Giles, Coupland and Wiemann1990). Of course, social conventions and shared cultural and group norms make most communicative acts interpretable in fairly reliable ways (Gallois & Callan, Reference Gallois and Callan1988), so these differences occur within a relatively narrow band. However, the subjective and contextual nature of listeners’ judgments of nonaccommodation are important to note, as they have implications for how people recognize, acknowledge and cope with nonaccommodation, as well as for understanding how miscommunication arises.
Sources of Nonaccommodation
Communication adjustment serves two primary functions: managing coherent interaction (the cognitive function) and managing social relationships (the affective function) (see Chapter 3). Communication that is intended to be, or is ultimately experienced as, nonaccommodative can occur relative to either of these functions, and be intentional or unintentional.
Intentional Nonaccommodation
In some cases, speakers do not want (certain) others to understand what they are saying; when this is speakers’ conscious goal or focus, they may enact approximation, interpretability and discourse management strategies in nonaccommodative ways. For example, parents sometimes spell out things they do not want their young children to understand (“should we have some I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M later?”). Similarly, in international negotiations or business transactions, speakers may code-switch into their native language (which is often incomprehensible to the other party) when they wish to discuss points within their team that they do not want the other party to understand. Such intentional nonaccommodation with respect to accommodation’s cognitive function is generally characterized by linguistically divergent communication behavior, and recipients typically perceive the resultant communication as underaccommodative.
Just as people sometimes want to prevent others from understanding them, sometimes they want to create social distance, emphasize distinctiveness, or reinforce group boundaries, rather than affiliate. When this is speakers’ conscious goal or focus, they may enact approximation, discourse management, interpersonal control, and emotional expression strategies in nonaccommodative ways, to express and create difference. Examples of this include broadening or emphasizing one’s accent when faced with negative comments from an outgroup speaker (e.g., Bourhis & Giles, Reference 101Bourhis, Giles and Giles1977), or a younger adult using patronizing talk as a means to exert control over a (dependent) older adult. As with intentional, cognitive nonaccommodation, this situation is generally characterized by linguistic divergence. Depending on the nature of the context and communication, nonaccommodative moves enacted with the goal of increasing social distance and emphasizing difference could be interpreted as appropriately adjusted (as described earlier) or as either over- or underaccommodative.
Unintentional Nonaccommodation
However, not all communicative behavior experienced as nonaccommodative is intended to be so: in a variety of situations, people may intend to accommodate their interlocutor, but ultimately be perceived as over- or underaccommodative (cf. Williams, Reference Williams1999). Sometimes, speakers misjudge or misunderstand their conversational partners’ needs, knowledge, or background (i.e., what is common ground; Clark & Krych, Reference Clark and Krych2004) with consequences for the cognitive function of accommodation. If people assume their interlocutors know a word or are familiar with a concept that is not, in fact, in their repertoire, they may omit or elide information those interlocutors need to follow the conversation, such as a definition of a term or explanation of a concept. In this case, speakers may believe they are accommodating appropriately (i.e., psychologically converging), but listeners perceive them as underaccommodative. Conversely, if speakers believe or assume their interlocutors do not know a term or concept that they are, in fact, familiar with, speakers may go out of their way to provide elaborations and explanations that are unnecessary. In this case, while (again) speakers believe they are accommodating appropriately, they may be perceived as patronizing or “talking down” to their conversational partners – that is, as overaccommodating. Unless interlocutors alert speakers to their errors and/or the way interlocutors perceive the encounter, speakers may not realize their communication is inappropriately adjusted and/or perceived as problematic. Unfortunately, this means that such nonaccommodation can persist for long periods of time, sometimes to such an extent that it becomes institutionalized (e.g., patronizing talk in nursing homes; insufficiently elaborated explanations in instructional settings).
Speakers can also inadvertently increase social distance and sour social relations with their communicative adjustments. Using informal terms of address (e.g., first names) with older adults who prefer more respectful or formal terms (e.g., “Mr. or Mrs. Johnson”) has been identified as a form of patronizing talk (Ryan et al., Reference 104Ryan, Hummert and Boich1995). Often, a speaker’s goal in using an informal term may be to reduce social distance and be friendly; however, if the recipient perceives this as inappropriate or disrespectful, it can be experienced as either overaccommodative (relative to desired social distance) or underaccommodative (relative to desired acknowledgment of status or respect). Similarly, Platt and Weber (Reference Platt and Weber1984) describe how Singaporean hotel staff’s attempts to use “educated” English to make a good impression on hotel guests – coined “miscarried accommodation” – were often met with “irritation and sometimes confusion about the speaker’s attitude to the addressee … at times mistaken for coolness or standoffishness” (p. 135). Although these speakers’ intentions were to adjust their communication appropriately and be polite to their clients, their speech was perceived as overly formal, and gave the impression that they were trying to distance themselves socially. In this case, the hotel staff accommodated to their stereotypes of “educated” English, rather than the way people actually spoke. Adjusting communication according to group-based stereotypes, rather than interlocutors’ actual and/or individual communicative characteristics, is a common cause of unintentional over- and underaccommodation.
Differences in cultural values or norms related to communication can also be a source of unintended nonaccommodation. Gasiorek and Van de Poel (Reference 102Gasiorek and Van de Poel2012) found that while mobile medical professionals (i.e., doctors working in a non-native country, culture and language) gave themselves high ratings of competence and confidence in their language and communication abilities, their native-speaker colleagues identified a number of ways in which they saw these non-native speakers’ communication as problematic. A likely explanation is that these two groups were operating with different, culturally determined ideas of what constitutes “appropriate” communication. As a result, the mobile medical professionals felt they were accommodating, but their colleagues perceived aspects of their communication to be nonaccommodative.
Lastly, sometimes speakers are aware of the fact that they are not accommodating their interlocutors, but are unable to do anything about it because of other constraints. As discussed in Chapter 3 (this volume), the degree and quality of accommodation in interaction is a function of both motivation and ability; if people are not able to adjust their communication in particular ways, they will not do so, regardless of motivation. Thus, when a situation demands a communicative skill people do not have – for example, speaking a language they do not know – they are likely to be perceived as nonaccommodative (e.g., Simard, Taylor, & Giles, Reference Simard, Taylor and Giles1976). Although they may be aware of this fact, they are not in the situation intentionally. Recent empirical work suggests that under these circumstances, speakers may compensate by seeking to accommodate in other ways, such as apologizing for difficulties or emphasizing social or relational aspects of the situation when linguistic barriers impede full comprehension of content (Gasiorek, Van de Poel, & Blockmans, Reference Gasiorek, Van de Poel and Blockmans2015; Giles, Taylor, & Bourhis, Reference Giles, Taylor and Bourhis1973).
Effects of Nonaccommodation
Although speakers’ nonaccommodation can sometimes be a means to express positive distinctiveness – and as such may be experienced positively, at least by ingroup members – negative consequences generally follow from nonaccommodation, particularly when it is defined in terms of listeners’ perceptions. Whether intended or unintended, nonaccommodation affecting comprehension or coherence in interaction (the cognitive function) can result in miscommunication, misunderstanding and/or communication breakdown (e.g., Coupland, Wiemann, & Giles, Reference Coupland, Wiemann, Giles, Coupland, Giles and Wiemann1991; Mustajoki, Reference Mustajoki, Borisova and Souleimanova2013). This is obviously problematic in applied settings; in instructional or educational contexts, for example, this can translate to students not learning the desired material and performing poorly on exams. In medical contexts, nonaccommodation between doctors in multidisciplinary medical teams has documented consequences for doctors’ understanding of patients’ health status and care needs, as well as patient health outcomes (Hewett, Watson, & Gallois, Reference Hewett, Watson and Gallois2015; Hewett, Watson, Gallois, Ward, & Leggett, Reference Hewett, Watson, Gallois, Ward and Leggett2009a, Reference Hewett, Watson, Gallois, Ward and Leggettb; see also Chapter 8).
Whether intended or unintended, nonaccommodation affecting social relations (the affective function) generally has negative consequences too, including less positive evaluations of individuals and their corresponding social groups, as well as lower quality of contact and relational solidarity (Soliz & Giles, Reference Soliz, Giles and Cohen2014; see also Chapter 4). As additional examples of the negative consequences of nonaccommodation, the CAT-based Communication Predicament of Aging Model (CPAM; Ryan, Giles, Bartolucci & Henwood, Reference Ryan, Giles, Bartolucci and Henwood1986) and the Age Stereotypes in Interaction Model (ASIM; Hummert, Reference Hummert, Hummert, Wiemann and Nussbaum1994; Hummert, Garstka, Ryan, & Bonneson, Reference Hummert, Garstka, Ryan, Bonneson, Coupland and Nussbaum2004) both describe how patronizing talk to older adults (i.e., overaccommodation, typically as a result of accommodation to negative stereotypes of this group) can create a negative self-fulfilling prophecy (see also, Chapter 7). Implicit in the use of patronizing talk, the models suggest, is the message that the recipient is incompetent and/or unable to function as a “normal” independent adult. This notion is often reinforced in interaction, where the use of patronizing talk constrains older adults’ opportunities to express and convey their competence and independence. If older adults are repeatedly patronized and constrained like this, they may begin to internalize the belief that they are no longer competent and independent, and start to act in ways consistent with that belief. The result is negative communicative, psychological, and potentially even physical outcomes for older adults, as they ultimately accommodate to expectations of incompetence implicit (and sometimes explicit) in the nonaccommodative communication they experience.
Recent theoretical and empirical work has shown that recipients’ inferences about speakers’ motives influence these outcomes (e.g., Gasiorek & Giles, Reference Gasiorek and Giles2012, Reference Gasiorek and Giles2015; Giles & Gasiorek, Reference Giles, Gasiorek, Forgas, László and Orsolya2013). Faced with communication experienced as nonaccommodative, people often seek to understand and/or explain why their interlocutors are not accommodating them. The motives they infer to underlie their interlocutors’ communicative behavior (e.g., to help or to hurt) have been found to predict their evaluations of both speakers and their communication. When nonaccommodation is perceived as either unintentional or intentional but positively motivated (e.g., someone is attempting to be helpful, just doing so poorly – in other words, as psychologically convergent), negative evaluations tend to be attenuated, relative to situations where nonaccommodation is perceived as intentional and negatively motived (e.g., someone attempting to be hurtful, or show that they are superior – in other words, as psychologically divergent). Indeed, Gasiorek and Giles (Reference Gasiorek and Giles2015) have recently suggested that inferred motive may operate as a lens through which perceived accommodation is judged. When speaks perceives (the same) communicative behavior to be more negatively motivated, they also perceive it as less accommodative (i.e., appropriately adjusted in context). Collectively, these findings underscore how different interpretations or inferences about the same communicative behavior can lead to more or less negative social and relational consequences.
Managing Nonaccommodation
Nonaccommodation can put individuals in a challenging interactional position. As the previous sections have discussed, evaluative and psychological responses to nonaccommodation are generally negative (e.g., Williams, Reference Williams1996), suggesting that nonaccommodation is something people would seek to curtail. However, in determining how to respond to (perceived) nonaccommodation, there are frequently other social dynamics at play, including issues of power, relational history, and impression management. As such, nonaccommodation may be managed in a variety of ways, with a range of consequences.
When nonaccommodation takes the form of overt linguistic divergence (e.g., a speaker using a different language), respondents may choose to either converge to or diverge from their interlocutors. (In some cases, a respondents’ “divergence” may constitute maintenance of their own or preferred language). Research on speech accommodation in bilingual settings suggests that speakers’ choices generally depend on contextual factors such as the interlocutor’s social identity, and that such factors also affect how speakers’ choices are evaluated in context (e.g., Genesee & Bourhis, Reference Genesee and Bourhis1982, 1988; Lawson-Sako & Sachdev, Reference Lawson-Sako, Sachdev and Suleiman1996).
Research on managing overaccommodation has generally focused on responses to patronizing talk. One strategy frequently used by older adults (as well as disabled adults; Fox & Giles, Reference Fox and Giles1996) is a passive or ignoring/nonrelevant response, which consists of allowing the patronizing talk to pass without comment (Harwood, Ryan, Giles, & Tysoski, Reference Harwood, Ryan, Giles and Tysoski1997). Although this typically results in high ratings of respondents’ solidarity and warmth, this type of response does little to counter the implicit or explicit attributions of incompetence conveyed in patronizing talk. It also does little to alert the speaker that their communication is inappropriate, and therefore little to prevent future instances of patronizing talk from occurring.
Other types of responses address the problematic nature of patronizing communication (i.e., overaccommodation), but entail social risks. Assertive and appreciative responses consist of older adults’ asserting their autonomy with a positive or neutral emotional tone; aggressive and condescending responses also consist of asserting one’s autonomy, but with a more negative or confrontational tone and associated nonverbal behavior (Hummert & Mazloff, Reference Hummert and Mazloff2001; Ryan, Anas, & Friedman, Reference Ryan, Anas and Friedman2006). While these approaches generally do affirm older adults’ competence in the eyes of others, they often come at a cost to older adults’ perceived solidarity or warmth, particularly when the affective valence of the response is negative. A possible compromise may be found in a humorous response, which consists of making a joke or witty remark to protest patronizing communication, but in a way that minimizes face-threat (Ryan, Kennaley, Pratt, & Shumovich, Reference Ryan, Kennaley, Pratt and Shumovich2000). If these responses are perceived as intended (and not as caustic or sarcastic), there is the potential for these to allow for the “best of all possible worlds,” asserting older adults’ competence without compromising warmth and solidarity (Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Kennaley, Pratt and Shumovich2000).
Finally, research has identified three broad categories of responses to underaccommodation: direct, indirect, and passive. Direct responses include asking questions (particularly when the underaccommodation is linked to issues with comprehension) or confronting the speaker about their nonaccommodative behavior. Indirect responses include stopping or attempting to stop the interaction, minimal moves (i.e., short verbalizations that acknowledge a speaker but do not invite further comment), expressing negative affect nonverbally, or changing the subject. Finally, as earlier, passive responses include ignoring or playing along with the underaccommodation (Coupland, Coupland, Giles, & Wiemann, Reference Coupland, Coupland, Giles, Wiemann and Coupland1988; Gasiorek, Reference Gasiorek2013). To date, there do not appear to be any studies examining the perceptions of speakers that follow from each of these types of responses. However, Gasiorek’s (Reference Gasiorek2013) study did find that participants’ attributing a negative motive to the speaker was associated with a higher likelihood of stopping the interaction and expressing negative affect nonverbally, and with a lower likelihood of ignoring or playing along with underaccommodation.
In short, there is a range of possible ways to manage nonaccommodation in interaction. However, those that overtly address the problematic nature of another person’s communication often entail social risks – including, likely, being seen as nonaccommodative. The “best” or “most appropriate” response to nonaccommodation arguably depends on contextual factors, particularly respondents’ goals. If a priority is placed on social relations, a passive response may be the most effective means to that end; if priority is placed on arresting present and future nonaccommodation – with less concern for social dimensions of the interaction – a more direct, assertive or divergent approach may be the most apposite.
Opportunities in Nonaccommodation Research
In the years since CAT’s inception, the focus of nonaccommodation research has expanded from an early focus on speaker behavior (i.e., linguistic accommodation), to include speaker’s intentions and goals (i.e., psychological accommodation and accommodative strategies) and listener’s perceptions (i.e., over- and underaccommodation). These shifts have created new opportunities for theorizing and research; this section briefly addresses three of these.
Social Cognition and Perspective-Taking
Conceptualizing nonaccommodation in terms of listeners’ perceptions – as does work on over- and underaccommodation – implicates other variables: to be able to explain and predict outcomes that follow from interactants’ perceptions, we need to understand the nature of these perceptions. Attributions, a key component of perceptions and evaluations of others’ behavior, have been a part of CAT’s framework for most of the theory’s history (e.g., Simard et al., Reference Simard, Taylor and Giles1976). However, research on social cognition and message processing (e.g., Levinson, Reference Levinson2006; Malle, Reference Malle and Zanna2011; Malle & Hodges, Reference Malle and Hodges2005) has made considerable strides since attributions were first incorporated into CAT research, and it is arguably time to integrate these new advances into the theory’s framework. One social cognitive construct with particular potential is perspective-taking, the situated process of representing or imagining the content of another person’s mental state (e.g., Galinksy, Ku, & Wang, Reference Galinsky, Ku and Wang2005; Goldstein, Vezich, & Shapiro, Reference Goldstein, Vezich and Shapiro2014).
First, perspective-taking provides a means to explain unintentional over- and underaccommodation. If speakers arrive at incorrect conclusions about what a target knows, needs, or wants (which is not uncommon; Barr & Keysar, Reference Barr, Keysar, Malle and Hodges2005) – for example, as a result of overreliance of stereotypes relative to individuating information – either over- or underaccommodation could be a result. However, there has been no research to date explicitly addressing the link between speakers’ perspective-taking and the extent to which their communication is perceived as over- or underaccommodative. Approaching unintentional over- and underaccommodation in this way may also suggest potential remedies for these issues, which may have pragmatic value.
Perspective-taking may also influence how people evaluate nonaccommodation. Given past research on the prosocial outcomes of perspective-taking (Hodges, Clark, & Myers, Reference Hodges, Clark, Myers and Biswas-Diener2012) and its positive effect on explanations for others’ behavior in negative situations (Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, Reference Vescio, Sechrist and Paolucci2003), it is reasonable to expect that the extent to which recipients of nonaccommodation engage in perspective-taking could affect how they perceive and evaluate these interactions. A recent study of recalled nonaccommodative conversations provides initial support for this assertion: Gasiorek (Reference Gasiorek2015) found that the more participants reported being able to see the problematic conversation from their interlocutor’s point of view, the more positively motivated they saw the other person’s communication to be. Additionally, participants instructed to take their interlocutors’ perspective when recalling the conversation (an experimental manipulation) rated the communication they recalled as more accommodative than those who did not. However, this is only a single study; additional research is needed to confirm and expand on these findings.
Underaccommodation
A second opportunity in research on nonaccommodation lies in expanding work on underaccommodation, both theoretically and empirically. To date, overaccommodation has received considerably more scholarly attention than underaccommodation. However, there is some evidence that underaccommodation may in fact be a more prevalent issue, at least for some demographic groups: in a recent study examining college students’ experiences, 90 per cent of the instances of nonaccommodation reported by participants were underaccommodation (Gasiorek & Giles, Reference Gasiorek and Giles2012).
While overaccommodation is primarily problematic in terms of its effects on social relationships (i.e., the affective function of communication adjustment), underaccommodation is likely to result in consequences for both the management of social relationships and comprehension (i.e., the cognitive function of communication adjustment). Underaccommodation in verbal and nonverbal behavior often increases perceived social distance; for example, in the form of divergence or maintenance, it typically signals disaffiliation. However, underaccommodation in discourse management, as in painful self-disclosures by older adults (e.g., Bonnesen & Hummert, Reference Bonnesen and Hummert2002), can also result in recipients’ feeling that speakers are being inappropriately intimate. Thus, depending on the form it takes, underaccommodation can result in either undesirable detachment or unwelcome closeness. How underaccommodation along different dimensions of accommodation (see Chapter 5) creates different interactional dilemmas, and results in different social and interactional outcomes, has not been systematically elaborated or tested.
Additionally, as noted earlier, responding to underaccommodation in context presents an interesting interactional dilemma. Ironically, and in contrast to situations involving overaccommodation, recipients of underaccommodation may actually get the implicit message that speakers think they are more competent than they really are. This creates a challenge in crafting a response, as recipients must figure out how to indicate that they need help without compromising impressions of their competence too severely. Given the present imbalance in research on over- versus underaccommodation, and the apparent potential for more problematic and negative outcomes following from the latter (e.g., Gasiorek & Giles, Reference Gasiorek and Giles2012; Jones, Gallois, Barker & Callan, Reference Jones, Gallois, Barker and Callan1994), greater scholarly attention should be focused on underaccommodation.
Nonaccommodation in Context
Finally, as this volume’s final Chapter 10 contends, a future vista for all CAT work is the development of more thorough understandings of accommodation in context. Research on nonaccommodation is no exception to this. As outlined earlier, a given communication behavior could be considered in terms of (a) its linguistic features; (b) speakers’ intentions; or (c) listeners’ perceptions, and may be construed in different ways by difference audiences. Contextual variables are critical to understanding how communication jointly operates along these three dimensions in real world settings. Linguistically divergent communication can be an expression of positive distinctiveness, antipathy, disaffiliation or defiance, among many other possibilities. Which one of these it is intended to be, and whether listeners perceive it as such, will depend on features of the context, including physical location, interactants’ history, local social norms, and interactants’ goals.
Among contextual considerations, particular attention should be afforded to the intergroup nature of the interaction, as nonaccommodation is more likely to occur in intergroup interactions. First, intergroup interactions are more likely to involve the activation of group-based stereotypes, because social identity is salient (cf. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, Reference Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell1987). This increases the likelihood of accommodation to those stereotypes, rather than individuated communicative needs or characteristics, and therefore the likelihood of over- or underaccommodation. Second, there is evidence that people are more likely to attribute negative motives to outgroup members, and positive motives to ingroup members. Past research has shown, for example, that people receive criticism from ingroup members less defensively than from outgroup members (intergroup sensitivity effect), because they see (the same) criticism from ingroup members as more constructive (Hornsey & Imani, Reference Hornsey and Imani2004; Hornsey, Trembath, & Gunthorpe, Reference 103Hornsey, Trembath and Gunthorpe2004). To the extent that inferred motive acts as a lens through which accommodation is judged, this suggests that in general, outgroup members’ communication is more likely to be evaluated as nonaccommodative (because it is likely to be seen as more negatively motivated).
Previous work in CAT acknowledges these issues, theoretically and empirically. However, bodies of thoroughly developed, contextualized empirical work addressing nonaccommodation exists in a relatively small number of domains, namely intergenerational, interethnic/intercultural (in conjunction with work on language attitudes), police–civilian/legal, and medical/healthcare contexts. (Notably, all these areas have a strong intergroup component to them, and this has been an integral aspect of these programs of research). In other areas, such as instructional, computer-mediated, organizational, and interreligious contexts, a small number of studies have made promising first steps. However, more work is needed for a thorough understanding of what nonaccommodation looks like, how and why it arises, how it is perceived by different actors and related groups, and what its consequences are in each of these domains.
Conclusions
There is a long, rich history of research on nonaccommodation within CAT literature, and the theory’s shift to foregrounding psychological variables – most notably, listeners’ perceptions of communication as over- and underaccommodative – has brought new opportunities for theorizing and empirical research. However, these opportunities are accompanied by dilemmas and challenges. On one hand, the theory’s move toward focusing on the psychological states of speakers and listeners has led to better predictive and explanatory power. People react to what they experience; words and actions only have meaning to the extent that people, as social creatures, imbue them with meaning. As discussed throughout this chapter, a given communicative act could be interpreted in a variety of ways. When scholars understand what people are subjectively experiencing, they can better understand – and, given enough information, predict – people’s responses to communication behavior in context.
On the other hand, attention to perception should be balanced with attention to behavior. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder, but members of a given social group often see the world through very similar lenses (Gallois & Callan, Reference Gallois and Callan1988). Understanding what language elements or features consistently result in what kind of responses under a given set of circumstances is also important. Among other things, such attention and knowledge allows us to provide concrete recommendations for facilitating or avoiding certain forms of communication and their related outcomes. Interventions in which nurses are trained to minimize prototypical features of patronizing speech in their talk with older adults (e.g., Williams, Kemper, & Hummert, Reference Williams, Kemper and Hummert2003) serve as just one example of this.
By considering these social cognitive processes in conjunction with communication behavior in context, we may be able to gain insight about why we infer a particular motive, in a particular situation, and what consequences that has. For example, when is patronizing talk seen as controlling, and when is it seen as caring (cf. Harwood & Giles, Reference Harwood and Giles1996)? To what extent is it features of the message itself that contribute to this assessment, and to what extent is it the person, the relationship, or the social identities at play? Teasing out these issues in context is arguably an important direction for future research on nonaccommodation. Systematic studies incorporating the perspectives of both the speaker and the listener – often a rarity in CAT research – will be an important next step here. To the extent that such work can also measure both interactants’ perceptions of interaction (through, e.g., self-report or cued recall procedures) in conjunction with objective analysis of communication behavior (through, e.g., textual analysis by computer programs or traditional coding of interaction behavior), we will also have a richer understanding of nonaccommodation as a dynamic, interactive, and co-constructed process (see Chapter 6).
Communication is a social tool; in addition to being a means to express thought, it can be used to manage both micro- and macro-level social relations. Although it is often seen as the “dark side” of CAT, nonaccommodation plays an important role in these processes. The better we understand the nuances of nonaccommodation, in terms of both behavior and perception, the better positioned we are to achieve our own goals, and to understand our social world.
