This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University] On: 29 December 2014, At: 10:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Interpreting Subtle Inconsistency and Consistency: A DevelopmentalClinical Perspective a
Leena Roy & Janet K. Sawyers a
b
Department of Family Sciences , Brigham Young University
b
Department of Family and Child Development , Virginia Polytechnic and State University Published online: 02 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Leena Roy & Janet K. Sawyers (1990) Interpreting Subtle Inconsistency and Consistency: A Developmental-Clinical Perspective, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 151:4, 515-521, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1990.9914636 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1990.9914636
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Generic Psychology, 151(4), 515-521
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Interpreting Subtle Inconsistency and Consistency: A Developmental-Clinical Perspective LEENA ROY Department of Family Sciences Brigham Young University
JANET K. SAWYERS Department of Family and Child Development Virginia Polytechnic and State University
ABSTRACT. The meaning attributed to subtle inconsistent messages by outpatient c l i c a l and nonclinical adolescents was studied. The verbal and nonverbal cues used to attribute this meaning were also studied. Both groups attributed meaning to consistent messages accurately and without hesitation and attributed meaning to subtle inconsistent messages with much less consensus and clarity. The clinical group used a verbal focus at times and a nonverbal one at other times to interpret consistent and inconsistent messages that were indicative of a developmentally transitional phase. Nonclinical adolescents always used a nonverbal focus to interpret consistent and inconsistent messages in a developmentally age-appropriate manner.
SUBTLE INCONSISTENCYrefers to messages with incongruent verbal and nonverbal (tone of voice, facial expression, physical gesture, etc.) components. The repeated use of such messages in the context of close relationships was an essential part of the clinical concept of the double bind (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956). Developmental research on the manner in which subtle inconsistent messages are interpreted has revealed some trends. Children 12 to 42 months of age focused on auditory rather than on This report was presented at the Second International and Forty-third Annual Conferences of the American Associationfor Marriage and Family Therapy in New York, October 1985. Leena Roy is currently the manager of the Mother-Infant Support Team, Hawaii Family Stress Center. Requestsfor reprints should be sent to Leena Roy, Hawaii Family Stress Center, 2919 Kapiolani Blvd., #30, Honolulu, HI 96826. 515
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
5 16
The Journal of Generic Psychology
visual aspects of such messages in interpreting them (Vollunar, Honder, & Siegal, 1980). Given the many difficulties of studying very young children, however, it remained unclear as to whether the reliance was on the words (verbal channel) or the tone of voice in which they were spoken (nonverbal channel). Nevertheless, it is sometimes assumed that, in infancy, nonverbal communication is the channel that is principally relied on. Preschoolers showed both a verbal focus in interpreting subtle inconsistency at times and no particular focus at other times (Reilly, 1986; Sawyers & Roy, 1984). School-age children (6 to 12 years old) focused on the verbal aspect (Dimitrovsky, 1964; Soloman & Yaeger, 1969; Woolfolk, Woolfolk, & Garlinsky, 1977). Adolescents shifted from a verbal reliance to a nonverbal one that qualified the verbal message (Blanck, Rosenthal, Snodgrass, DePaulo, & Zuckerman, 1982; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1978), and adults maintained this nonverbal focus (Blanck et al., 1982; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1978, 1979; Mehrabian & Weiner, 1967; Soloman & Ali, 1972; Zuckerman, Blanck, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1980). Against this background of developmental trends, a few studies have compared the interpretations of clinical and nonclinical groups. In Reilly & Muzekari’s 1979 study, hospitalized clinical adults and children (mean age, 8 years), as well as nonclinical children (mean age, 8 years) relied on the verbal features of subtle inconsistent messages, and nonclinical adults focused on the nonverbal features. Their study, however, did not provide any information on the manner in which consistent messages were interpreted by these groups; this was attempted in their subsequent 1985 study of hospitalized clinical and nonclinical groups of school-age children, adolescents, and adults. In interpreting subtle inconsistency, there was an age-related increasing shift in focus from verbal to nonverbal features in the nonclinical groups. However, as seen previously, there was a verbal focus, regardless of age, in the clinical groups, which was explained in terms of hampered development. Although the meaning attributed to consistent messages was the focus of Reilly & Muzekari’s 1985 study, no significant differences were found in the way consistent messages were interpreted across groups. This finding was compared with the aspect that was emphasized in inconsistent messages, where the response also revealed an implicit focus on either the verbal or the nonverbal part of the inconsistent message. In this study, we examined the meaning attributed to subtle inconsistent and consistent messages and the features of communication (verbal or nonverbal) that were emphasized in doing so, by clinical and nonclinical groups. In addition, the messages were presented in a mother-child context. A close relationship context such as this was a significant part of the original double bind formulation and was not used in the studies comparing clinical and nonclinical groups. Finally, a less severe clinical group (outpatient), which has not been studied in this context so far, was compared with a nonclinical one.
Roy & Sawyers
517
Method
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Subjects and Procedure A clinical sample of 20 adolescents (13 to 19 years old) was selected from the outpatient services of a mental health clinic in Blacksburg, Virginia. They demonstrated a broad range of emotional and behavioral problems without having any mentally deficient classifications. Demographic da@on age, race, and sex were used to find a matching nonclinical sample (i.e., with no outpatient or inpatient history) of 20 adolescents from the middle and high schools of Montgomery County, Virginia. Subjects were tested individually. During a brief rapport formation period, each subject’s demographic information was obtained. The experimenter (the senior author) was seated across the table from the subject; the warm-up task presented a 12 in. x 16 in. black-and-white picture of a mother-child interaction and an accompanying audiotaped story about it. The subject was asked if the mother was happy or angry with the child. Thereafter, eight tasks were presented, consisting of 8 in. x 15 in. black-and-white pictures of a mother-child interaction and accompanying audiotaped statements developed by Reilly (1986). lkro messages of each of the following four types of communication were given by the mother: inconsistent negative (negative verbal and positive nonverbal messages); inconsistent positive (positive verbal and negative nonverbal messages); consistent positive (positive verbal and nonverbal messages); and consistent negative (negative verbal and nonverbal messages). Therefore, the two types of inconsistent message represented the subtle inconsistency discussed earlier. The split-half reliability of the instrument was determined to be .89. The tasks were presented separately in one of three predetermined random orders. A response of happy received a score of 1, and a response of angry received a score of 2. These responses revealed the meaning that was being attributed to the messages. After the first round, the tasks were again presented one by one. This time, subjects were asked to indicate why they said that the mother was happy or angry in the first task. These responses revealed what features of communication they had focused on in attributing meaning. The responses were noted; a focus on nonverbal features received a score of 1, and a focus on verbal features received a score of 2. Analysis
To analyze the attribution of meaning, a repeated-measures factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The independent variables used were two groups, clinical and nonclinical (CNC); two message types, consistent
5 18
The Journal of Genetic Psychology
and inconsistent (CIC); and two message meanings, positive and negative (PN), with the latter two variables repeated across subjects. To analyze the verbal or nonverbal focus used in attributing meaning, another repeatedmeasures factorial ANOVA was conducted, using the same independent variables.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Results With the dependent variable attribution of meaning, there was only one significant main effect: This was for PN, F(l,38) = 927.78,p = .001.There was a general consensus on the response “happy” for positive messages and “angry” for negative messages. There was a significant interaction effect for CIC x PN, F(l,38) = 23.58, p = .001,showing that the consensus on “happy” for positive messages was greater than on “angry” for negative messages. The simple effects revealed a significant effect for PN with consistent messages, F(1, 38) = 156.25,p < .01,with consistent positive messages being interpreted uniformly as happy (M = 1.0) and consistent negative messages being uniformly interpreted as angry (M = 2.0) (Table 1). A significant simple effect was also found for CIC with negative messages being interpreted uniformly as angry (M = 2.0) and inconsistent negative messages being interpreted mostly as angry and sometimes as happy (M = 1.83). With the dependent variable verbal or nonverbal focus, there were two significant main effects. One was for CNC, F( 1, 38) = 11.08,p = .002, showing that the nonclinical group had a greater tendency towards a nonverbal focus (M = 1.04)than the clinical group (M = 1.22).Another significant main effect was for PN, F( 1,38) = 12.22,p = .001, showing that negative messages were interpreted with more of a nonverbal focus (M = 1.08) than positive messages were (M = 1.2). A significant interaction was found for CIC x PN, F(1, 38) = 5.59, p = .023,as consistent and inconsistent positive messages were interpreted with more of a verbal than nonverbal focus relative to consistent and inconsistent negative messages. However, a CNC X CIC X PN interaction was significant as well, F(l, 38) = 7.08,p = .011,because the nonclinical group used a nonverbal focus in interpreting all message types. The clinical group used a verbal focus in interpreting consistent and inconsistent positive ‘Although the categorical nature of the data would lead one in the direction of chisquare analysis, in this case the factor Repeated Measures made a repeated-measures ANOVA more appropriate. Also, the use of more than one dependent variable would lead one toward multivariate analysis, but again the categorical nature of the data made two successive repeated-measures ANOVAs (with the experiment-wise error rate controlled by dividing alpha by two) more appropriate.
Roy & Sawyers
519
TABLE 1 Mean Scores for Dependent Measures
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Group and determining focus
Meaning attributed to message Nonclinical Clinical Verbahonverbal message Nonclinical clinical
M and SD scores for indicated messages Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent Consistent negative positive negative positive M SD M SD M SD M SD 1.78 0.30 1.10 0.21 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.87 0.28 1.10 0.21 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.03 0.11 1.13 0.22 1.00 0.00 1.10 0.21 1.25 0.26 1.20 0.25 1.03 0.11 1.38 0.46
messages and inconsistent negative messages, and they used a nonverbal focus in interpreting consistent negative messages. The simple effects revealed significant effects for CNC with positive messages, F(l, 38) = 9.11, p < .01, and inconsistent messages, F(l, 38) = 6.69,p < .01.The clinical group used more of a verbal focus in interpreting positive and inconsistent messages (M = 1.29,1.23,respectively) than the nonclinical group did (M = 1.12,1.08,respectively). There were significant simple effects for CIC with negative messages, F( 1,38) = 37.93, p < .01,and for PN with consistent messages, F(1,38) = 17.97,p < .01. Reliance on verbal focus was used more in the interpretation of inconsistent negative messages (M = 1.4) than in that of consistent negative messages (M = 1.02);it was also used more in the interpretation of consistent positive messages (M = 1.24) than in that of consistent negative messages
(M = 1.02). Discussion Both outpatient clinical and nonclinical adolescents attributed meaning correctly and unhesitatingly to consistent messages. There was complete consensus on the interpretation of the consistent positive messages as happy and the consistent negative messages as angry. These findings are similar to the interpretations of consistent messages by nonclinical preschoolers (Reilly, 1986; Sawyers & Roy, 1984)and by hospitalized clinical and nonclinical groups of children, adolescents, and adults (Reilly & Muzeka& 1985). There were, in contrast, some differences of opinion in the attribution of meaning to inconsistent messages by both groups. Inconsistent positive mes-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
520
The Journal of Genetic Psychology
sages, however, were mostly attributed a happy meaning, quite similar to consistent positive messages, but there was much less consensus in the interpretation of inconsistent negative messages as angry, compared with that for consistent negative messages. This indicates that the groups disagreed considerably in taking the mother’s verbal anger seriously when her nonverbal message refuted it than when it did not. Perhaps this relates to the psychosocial expectation that mothers do not necessarily mean what they say in anger but that they do when they say it with affection (Reilly, 1986). Nonclinical adolescents focused on nonverbal information, using it to qualify the verbal information in interpreting all message categories, consistent and inconsistent. This is developmentally age-appropriate (Blanck et al., 1982; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1978). It also reflects their ability to use abstract (nonverbal) information in interpreting communication and is consistent with the expectation that they would be in the formal-operational stage of cognitive development at this point in their lives (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969). This facility with the abstract, nonverbal information allowed them to make interpretations such as “indifference” or sarcasm” for inconsistent positive messages and “suppression or toning down of anger” for inconsistent negative ones. Clinical adolescent outpatients, however, used a verbal focus at times and a nonverbal focus at other times. This showed them to be in a transitional stage between using a younger verbal focus and a developmentally more appropriate nonverbal focus. They were possibly also in a transitional stage between the concreteoperational and formal-operationalstages of cognitive development. In making the transition to using more of a nonverbal focus, messages in the consistent negative category seemed to take precedence. In the inconsistent message categories where a verbal focus was often used, more literal meanings of happy and angry were given to inconsistent positive and inconsistent negative messages, respectively. Hence, as severe clinical and nonclinical groups could be differentiated in terms of the verbal or nonverbal focus used in interpreting subtle inconsistency (Reilly & Muzekari, 1979, 1985),less severe clinical and nonclinical adolescents may also be differentiated in terms of the focus used in interpreting subtle inconsistency and consistency. It may be worthwhile, therefore, to develop a training program for clinical adolescents to expedite their ability to use nonverbal information in interpreting communication, especially in the message categories in which they find it more difficult to do so, as much may be lost in adult communicationwhen this subtle information is not adequately discerned. In this study, the subjects referred to tone of voice 52% of the time, followed by facial expression (33%)and physical gesture (15%). A possible primacy among nonverbal channels and its importance in interpreting subtle inconsistencycaused by different combinationsof verbal and nonverbal chan-
Roy & Sawyers
521
nels (Pease, 1970) for clinical and nonclinical groups may be worthy of further empirical study.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
REFERENCES Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. H. (1956). Towards a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251-269. Blanck, P. D., Rosenthal, R., Snodgrass, S. E., DePaulo, B. M., & Zuckerman, M. (1982). Longitudinal and cross-sectional age effects in nonverbal decoding skills and style. Developmental Psychology, 18,491-498. DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1978). Age changes in nonverbal decoding as a function of increasing amounts of information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 280-287. DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Ambivalence, discrepancy and deception in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication (pp. 204-248). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, GUM, & Hain. Dimitrovsky, L. (1964). The ability to identify the emotional meaning of vocal expressions. In J. R. Davitz (Ed.), The communication of emotional meaning (pp. 69-86). New York McGraw Hill. Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development: An introduction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mehrabian, A., & Weiner, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 109-1 14. Pease, K. (1970). Is the double bind a myth? New Sociefy, 16, 538-539. Reilly S. S. (1986). Preschool children’s and adults’ resolutions of consistent and discrepant messages. Communication Quarterly, 34, 79-87. Reilly, S. S., & Muzekari, L. H. (1979). Responses of normal and disturbed children to mixed messages. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(2), 203-208. Reilly, S S . , & Muzekari, L. H. (1985). Efects of emotional illness and age on the resolution of discrepant messages. Unpublished manuscript. Sawyers, J. K., & Roy, L. (1984). On some responses of preschoolers to inconsistent messages. Unpublished manuscript. Soloman, D., & Ali, P. (1972). Age trends and the perception of verbal reinforcers. Developmental Psychology, 7 , 238-243. Soloman, D., & Yeager, J. (1969). Determinants of boys’ perception of verbal reinforcers. Developmental Psychology, I, 637-645. Volkmar, F. R., Honder, E. L., & Siegal, A. E. (1980). Discrepant social communications. Developmental Psychology, 16, 495-505. Woolfolk, R., Woolfolk, A., & Garlinsky, K. (1977). Nonverbal behavior of teachers: Some empirical findings. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 45-61. Zuckerman, M., Blanck, P. D., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Developmental changes in decoding discrepant and non-discrepant nonverbal cues. Developmental Psychology, 16, 220-228.
Received July 26, 1989
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Interpreting Subtle Inconsistency and Consistency: A DevelopmentalClinical Perspective a
Leena Roy & Janet K. Sawyers a
b
Department of Family Sciences , Brigham Young University
b
Department of Family and Child Development , Virginia Polytechnic and State University Published online: 02 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Leena Roy & Janet K. Sawyers (1990) Interpreting Subtle Inconsistency and Consistency: A Developmental-Clinical Perspective, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 151:4, 515-521, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1990.9914636 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1990.9914636
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Generic Psychology, 151(4), 515-521
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Interpreting Subtle Inconsistency and Consistency: A Developmental-Clinical Perspective LEENA ROY Department of Family Sciences Brigham Young University
JANET K. SAWYERS Department of Family and Child Development Virginia Polytechnic and State University
ABSTRACT. The meaning attributed to subtle inconsistent messages by outpatient c l i c a l and nonclinical adolescents was studied. The verbal and nonverbal cues used to attribute this meaning were also studied. Both groups attributed meaning to consistent messages accurately and without hesitation and attributed meaning to subtle inconsistent messages with much less consensus and clarity. The clinical group used a verbal focus at times and a nonverbal one at other times to interpret consistent and inconsistent messages that were indicative of a developmentally transitional phase. Nonclinical adolescents always used a nonverbal focus to interpret consistent and inconsistent messages in a developmentally age-appropriate manner.
SUBTLE INCONSISTENCYrefers to messages with incongruent verbal and nonverbal (tone of voice, facial expression, physical gesture, etc.) components. The repeated use of such messages in the context of close relationships was an essential part of the clinical concept of the double bind (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956). Developmental research on the manner in which subtle inconsistent messages are interpreted has revealed some trends. Children 12 to 42 months of age focused on auditory rather than on This report was presented at the Second International and Forty-third Annual Conferences of the American Associationfor Marriage and Family Therapy in New York, October 1985. Leena Roy is currently the manager of the Mother-Infant Support Team, Hawaii Family Stress Center. Requestsfor reprints should be sent to Leena Roy, Hawaii Family Stress Center, 2919 Kapiolani Blvd., #30, Honolulu, HI 96826. 515
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
5 16
The Journal of Generic Psychology
visual aspects of such messages in interpreting them (Vollunar, Honder, & Siegal, 1980). Given the many difficulties of studying very young children, however, it remained unclear as to whether the reliance was on the words (verbal channel) or the tone of voice in which they were spoken (nonverbal channel). Nevertheless, it is sometimes assumed that, in infancy, nonverbal communication is the channel that is principally relied on. Preschoolers showed both a verbal focus in interpreting subtle inconsistency at times and no particular focus at other times (Reilly, 1986; Sawyers & Roy, 1984). School-age children (6 to 12 years old) focused on the verbal aspect (Dimitrovsky, 1964; Soloman & Yaeger, 1969; Woolfolk, Woolfolk, & Garlinsky, 1977). Adolescents shifted from a verbal reliance to a nonverbal one that qualified the verbal message (Blanck, Rosenthal, Snodgrass, DePaulo, & Zuckerman, 1982; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1978), and adults maintained this nonverbal focus (Blanck et al., 1982; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1978, 1979; Mehrabian & Weiner, 1967; Soloman & Ali, 1972; Zuckerman, Blanck, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1980). Against this background of developmental trends, a few studies have compared the interpretations of clinical and nonclinical groups. In Reilly & Muzekari’s 1979 study, hospitalized clinical adults and children (mean age, 8 years), as well as nonclinical children (mean age, 8 years) relied on the verbal features of subtle inconsistent messages, and nonclinical adults focused on the nonverbal features. Their study, however, did not provide any information on the manner in which consistent messages were interpreted by these groups; this was attempted in their subsequent 1985 study of hospitalized clinical and nonclinical groups of school-age children, adolescents, and adults. In interpreting subtle inconsistency, there was an age-related increasing shift in focus from verbal to nonverbal features in the nonclinical groups. However, as seen previously, there was a verbal focus, regardless of age, in the clinical groups, which was explained in terms of hampered development. Although the meaning attributed to consistent messages was the focus of Reilly & Muzekari’s 1985 study, no significant differences were found in the way consistent messages were interpreted across groups. This finding was compared with the aspect that was emphasized in inconsistent messages, where the response also revealed an implicit focus on either the verbal or the nonverbal part of the inconsistent message. In this study, we examined the meaning attributed to subtle inconsistent and consistent messages and the features of communication (verbal or nonverbal) that were emphasized in doing so, by clinical and nonclinical groups. In addition, the messages were presented in a mother-child context. A close relationship context such as this was a significant part of the original double bind formulation and was not used in the studies comparing clinical and nonclinical groups. Finally, a less severe clinical group (outpatient), which has not been studied in this context so far, was compared with a nonclinical one.
Roy & Sawyers
517
Method
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Subjects and Procedure A clinical sample of 20 adolescents (13 to 19 years old) was selected from the outpatient services of a mental health clinic in Blacksburg, Virginia. They demonstrated a broad range of emotional and behavioral problems without having any mentally deficient classifications. Demographic da@on age, race, and sex were used to find a matching nonclinical sample (i.e., with no outpatient or inpatient history) of 20 adolescents from the middle and high schools of Montgomery County, Virginia. Subjects were tested individually. During a brief rapport formation period, each subject’s demographic information was obtained. The experimenter (the senior author) was seated across the table from the subject; the warm-up task presented a 12 in. x 16 in. black-and-white picture of a mother-child interaction and an accompanying audiotaped story about it. The subject was asked if the mother was happy or angry with the child. Thereafter, eight tasks were presented, consisting of 8 in. x 15 in. black-and-white pictures of a mother-child interaction and accompanying audiotaped statements developed by Reilly (1986). lkro messages of each of the following four types of communication were given by the mother: inconsistent negative (negative verbal and positive nonverbal messages); inconsistent positive (positive verbal and negative nonverbal messages); consistent positive (positive verbal and nonverbal messages); and consistent negative (negative verbal and nonverbal messages). Therefore, the two types of inconsistent message represented the subtle inconsistency discussed earlier. The split-half reliability of the instrument was determined to be .89. The tasks were presented separately in one of three predetermined random orders. A response of happy received a score of 1, and a response of angry received a score of 2. These responses revealed the meaning that was being attributed to the messages. After the first round, the tasks were again presented one by one. This time, subjects were asked to indicate why they said that the mother was happy or angry in the first task. These responses revealed what features of communication they had focused on in attributing meaning. The responses were noted; a focus on nonverbal features received a score of 1, and a focus on verbal features received a score of 2. Analysis
To analyze the attribution of meaning, a repeated-measures factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The independent variables used were two groups, clinical and nonclinical (CNC); two message types, consistent
5 18
The Journal of Genetic Psychology
and inconsistent (CIC); and two message meanings, positive and negative (PN), with the latter two variables repeated across subjects. To analyze the verbal or nonverbal focus used in attributing meaning, another repeatedmeasures factorial ANOVA was conducted, using the same independent variables.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Results With the dependent variable attribution of meaning, there was only one significant main effect: This was for PN, F(l,38) = 927.78,p = .001.There was a general consensus on the response “happy” for positive messages and “angry” for negative messages. There was a significant interaction effect for CIC x PN, F(l,38) = 23.58, p = .001,showing that the consensus on “happy” for positive messages was greater than on “angry” for negative messages. The simple effects revealed a significant effect for PN with consistent messages, F(1, 38) = 156.25,p < .01,with consistent positive messages being interpreted uniformly as happy (M = 1.0) and consistent negative messages being uniformly interpreted as angry (M = 2.0) (Table 1). A significant simple effect was also found for CIC with negative messages being interpreted uniformly as angry (M = 2.0) and inconsistent negative messages being interpreted mostly as angry and sometimes as happy (M = 1.83). With the dependent variable verbal or nonverbal focus, there were two significant main effects. One was for CNC, F( 1, 38) = 11.08,p = .002, showing that the nonclinical group had a greater tendency towards a nonverbal focus (M = 1.04)than the clinical group (M = 1.22).Another significant main effect was for PN, F( 1,38) = 12.22,p = .001, showing that negative messages were interpreted with more of a nonverbal focus (M = 1.08) than positive messages were (M = 1.2). A significant interaction was found for CIC x PN, F(1, 38) = 5.59, p = .023,as consistent and inconsistent positive messages were interpreted with more of a verbal than nonverbal focus relative to consistent and inconsistent negative messages. However, a CNC X CIC X PN interaction was significant as well, F(l, 38) = 7.08,p = .011,because the nonclinical group used a nonverbal focus in interpreting all message types. The clinical group used a verbal focus in interpreting consistent and inconsistent positive ‘Although the categorical nature of the data would lead one in the direction of chisquare analysis, in this case the factor Repeated Measures made a repeated-measures ANOVA more appropriate. Also, the use of more than one dependent variable would lead one toward multivariate analysis, but again the categorical nature of the data made two successive repeated-measures ANOVAs (with the experiment-wise error rate controlled by dividing alpha by two) more appropriate.
Roy & Sawyers
519
TABLE 1 Mean Scores for Dependent Measures
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
Group and determining focus
Meaning attributed to message Nonclinical Clinical Verbahonverbal message Nonclinical clinical
M and SD scores for indicated messages Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent Consistent negative positive negative positive M SD M SD M SD M SD 1.78 0.30 1.10 0.21 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.87 0.28 1.10 0.21 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.03 0.11 1.13 0.22 1.00 0.00 1.10 0.21 1.25 0.26 1.20 0.25 1.03 0.11 1.38 0.46
messages and inconsistent negative messages, and they used a nonverbal focus in interpreting consistent negative messages. The simple effects revealed significant effects for CNC with positive messages, F(l, 38) = 9.11, p < .01, and inconsistent messages, F(l, 38) = 6.69,p < .01.The clinical group used more of a verbal focus in interpreting positive and inconsistent messages (M = 1.29,1.23,respectively) than the nonclinical group did (M = 1.12,1.08,respectively). There were significant simple effects for CIC with negative messages, F( 1,38) = 37.93, p < .01,and for PN with consistent messages, F(1,38) = 17.97,p < .01. Reliance on verbal focus was used more in the interpretation of inconsistent negative messages (M = 1.4) than in that of consistent negative messages (M = 1.02);it was also used more in the interpretation of consistent positive messages (M = 1.24) than in that of consistent negative messages
(M = 1.02). Discussion Both outpatient clinical and nonclinical adolescents attributed meaning correctly and unhesitatingly to consistent messages. There was complete consensus on the interpretation of the consistent positive messages as happy and the consistent negative messages as angry. These findings are similar to the interpretations of consistent messages by nonclinical preschoolers (Reilly, 1986; Sawyers & Roy, 1984)and by hospitalized clinical and nonclinical groups of children, adolescents, and adults (Reilly & Muzeka& 1985). There were, in contrast, some differences of opinion in the attribution of meaning to inconsistent messages by both groups. Inconsistent positive mes-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
520
The Journal of Genetic Psychology
sages, however, were mostly attributed a happy meaning, quite similar to consistent positive messages, but there was much less consensus in the interpretation of inconsistent negative messages as angry, compared with that for consistent negative messages. This indicates that the groups disagreed considerably in taking the mother’s verbal anger seriously when her nonverbal message refuted it than when it did not. Perhaps this relates to the psychosocial expectation that mothers do not necessarily mean what they say in anger but that they do when they say it with affection (Reilly, 1986). Nonclinical adolescents focused on nonverbal information, using it to qualify the verbal information in interpreting all message categories, consistent and inconsistent. This is developmentally age-appropriate (Blanck et al., 1982; DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1978). It also reflects their ability to use abstract (nonverbal) information in interpreting communication and is consistent with the expectation that they would be in the formal-operational stage of cognitive development at this point in their lives (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969). This facility with the abstract, nonverbal information allowed them to make interpretations such as “indifference” or sarcasm” for inconsistent positive messages and “suppression or toning down of anger” for inconsistent negative ones. Clinical adolescent outpatients, however, used a verbal focus at times and a nonverbal focus at other times. This showed them to be in a transitional stage between using a younger verbal focus and a developmentally more appropriate nonverbal focus. They were possibly also in a transitional stage between the concreteoperational and formal-operationalstages of cognitive development. In making the transition to using more of a nonverbal focus, messages in the consistent negative category seemed to take precedence. In the inconsistent message categories where a verbal focus was often used, more literal meanings of happy and angry were given to inconsistent positive and inconsistent negative messages, respectively. Hence, as severe clinical and nonclinical groups could be differentiated in terms of the verbal or nonverbal focus used in interpreting subtle inconsistency (Reilly & Muzekari, 1979, 1985),less severe clinical and nonclinical adolescents may also be differentiated in terms of the focus used in interpreting subtle inconsistency and consistency. It may be worthwhile, therefore, to develop a training program for clinical adolescents to expedite their ability to use nonverbal information in interpreting communication, especially in the message categories in which they find it more difficult to do so, as much may be lost in adult communicationwhen this subtle information is not adequately discerned. In this study, the subjects referred to tone of voice 52% of the time, followed by facial expression (33%)and physical gesture (15%). A possible primacy among nonverbal channels and its importance in interpreting subtle inconsistencycaused by different combinationsof verbal and nonverbal chan-
Roy & Sawyers
521
nels (Pease, 1970) for clinical and nonclinical groups may be worthy of further empirical study.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 10:20 29 December 2014
REFERENCES Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. H. (1956). Towards a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251-269. Blanck, P. D., Rosenthal, R., Snodgrass, S. E., DePaulo, B. M., & Zuckerman, M. (1982). Longitudinal and cross-sectional age effects in nonverbal decoding skills and style. Developmental Psychology, 18,491-498. DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1978). Age changes in nonverbal decoding as a function of increasing amounts of information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 26, 280-287. DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Ambivalence, discrepancy and deception in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.), Skill in nonverbal communication (pp. 204-248). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, GUM, & Hain. Dimitrovsky, L. (1964). The ability to identify the emotional meaning of vocal expressions. In J. R. Davitz (Ed.), The communication of emotional meaning (pp. 69-86). New York McGraw Hill. Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development: An introduction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mehrabian, A., & Weiner, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 109-1 14. Pease, K. (1970). Is the double bind a myth? New Sociefy, 16, 538-539. Reilly S. S. (1986). Preschool children’s and adults’ resolutions of consistent and discrepant messages. Communication Quarterly, 34, 79-87. Reilly, S. S., & Muzekari, L. H. (1979). Responses of normal and disturbed children to mixed messages. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(2), 203-208. Reilly, S S . , & Muzekari, L. H. (1985). Efects of emotional illness and age on the resolution of discrepant messages. Unpublished manuscript. Sawyers, J. K., & Roy, L. (1984). On some responses of preschoolers to inconsistent messages. Unpublished manuscript. Soloman, D., & Ali, P. (1972). Age trends and the perception of verbal reinforcers. Developmental Psychology, 7 , 238-243. Soloman, D., & Yeager, J. (1969). Determinants of boys’ perception of verbal reinforcers. Developmental Psychology, I, 637-645. Volkmar, F. R., Honder, E. L., & Siegal, A. E. (1980). Discrepant social communications. Developmental Psychology, 16, 495-505. Woolfolk, R., Woolfolk, A., & Garlinsky, K. (1977). Nonverbal behavior of teachers: Some empirical findings. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2, 45-61. Zuckerman, M., Blanck, P. D., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Developmental changes in decoding discrepant and non-discrepant nonverbal cues. Developmental Psychology, 16, 220-228.
Received July 26, 1989
