Lecture 4: Equivocation

Question 1

Equivocation

Answer 1

Nonstraightforward communication; it appears ambiguous, contradictory, tangential, obscure or even evasive

Question 2

Bavelas et al. (1990)

Answer 2

Situational Theory of Communicative Conflict (STCC).
Equivocation is multidimensional:
Sender
Content
Context
Receiver

Question 3

Bavelas et al (1988)

Answer 3

Method: At the Canadian Liberal Party convention.
Two main leadership candidates: John Turner (frontrunner) & Jean Chretien
Asked: “Do you think the Liberals will win the next election under John Turner?” (No CC for Turner supporters, CC for Chretien supporters)
Results: Replies for Chretien supporters sig. more equivocal than Turner supporters on the sender & context dimensions.
Equivocal responses also showed a sig. longer response latency.

Question 4

Bull and Mayer (1993)

Answer 4

Methods: 8 televised interviews from 1987 British general election campaign. Low reply rate - Thatcher (MT) (44%), Kinnock (NK) (41%).
Findings: Equivocation typology – 11 superordinate categories, 30 subordinate categories.
Correlation on superordinate categories. .93 (p

Question 5

Clayman (2001)

Answer 5

Distinguishes between overt and covert practices:
1. Overt - 3 forms of “damage control”:
Defers to the interviewer, e.g., requests permission to shift agenda.
Minimises the divergence, e.g., “very quickly”, or “just one comment”.
Refusal to answer - defers responsibility.
2. Covert:
Subversive word repeats – repeats word in question, but uses it in a different way.
Misleading use of pronouns, e.g., “Let’s talk about this” (and then doesn’t!).
Operates on the question – modifies the question in some way.

Question 6

Alfahad (2016)

Answer 6

Methods: 6 interviews each from 2 TV news channels:
Al-Arabiya – independent.
Al-Ekhbariya – state-owned (interviewers civil servants)
Results: Reply rates (direct answers):
Al-Arabiya (67%) (3.6 Qs per 2 minutes)
Al-Ekhbariya (90.4%) (1 Q per 2 minutes)
Questions on al-Ekhbariya not very conflictual

Question 7

Bull (1997)

Answer 7

Methods: Diana Interview.
Results: Reply rate (explicit) - 78% [cf. 46% from 33 political interviews [Bull, 1994)].
Answers by implication
Critical comments - Prince Charles, Royal Family, Mrs. Parker Bowles.
Communicative conflict underlies interview as a whole.
Strategic advantages of implicit answers not represented in equivocation theory.

Question 8

Simon-Vandenbergen (2008)

Answer 8

Methods: Debates (Autumn 2004) between a philosopher and two right-wing Flemish politicians (Flemish Interest).
Communicative conflict:
Vlaams Blok condemned for racism by Belgian court.
But still want to put message across.
Results: Use of: 1. Denials, e.g., criticisms “not “representative of our writings”.
2. Personal attacks e.g., “a superior intellectual like yourself”.
3. Implicit responses

Question 9

Bull (2015)

Answer 9

Theory:
Equivocation theory (Bavelas et al., 1990) – equivocation an alternative to lying. 
Equivocation may be deceptive through doublespeak:
Deliberate intent to disguise, distort or reverse the meaning of words.