Michelle Chernikoff Anderson

Accommodating a New Frontier: The Context of Law Enforcement

This chapter spotlights communication accommodation theory (CAT: see Giles, Coupland & Coupland, 1991) -- a longstanding framework (Gallois, Ogay & Giles, 2005: Giles, 1973) that has been heralded as one of the most prominent in the social psychology of language (Tracy & Haspel, 2004) and one that has captured cross-disciplinary imaginations (Coupland & Jaworski, 1997). The theory has had a hsitory of application to an array of organizational contexts (e.g. Bourhis, 1991) and, herein, we add another exciting possibility, namely its relevance for a more incisive appreciation of understanding police-civilian relations. After a brief discussion about what images people hold of police officers, we introduce CAT with particular attention to its face and identity concerns, whilst we distil the theoretical essence of CAT down to four key principles, underscoring its potential for developing not only an innovative reserach agenda for the future, but also for suggesting new theoretical propositions to test in this applied domain.anguage is the currency of most human social processes. We use words toconvey our emotions and thoughts, to tell stories, and to understand theworld. It is somewhat odd, then, that so few investigations in the socialsciences actually focus on natural language use among people in the real world.There are many legitimate reasons for not studying what people say or write.Historically, the analysis of text was slow, complex, and costly. The purpose of thischapter is to suggest that social scientists in general and social psychologists inparticular should reconsider the value of language studies. With recent advancesin computer text analysis methods, we are now able to explore basic social processesin new and rich ways that could not have been done even a decade ago.When language has been studied at all within social psychology, it has usuallyrelied on fairly rigorous experimental methods using an assortment of standardizedhuman coding procedures. These works are helping researchers to understandsocial attribution (Fiedler & Semin, 1992), intercultural communication (Hajek G Winter & McClelland, 1978)Over the last decade, a small group of researchers have adopted a somewhatdifferent strategy. Their goal has been to understand how the words people use intheir daily interactions reflect who they are and what they are doing. As detailedbelow, this strategy has also been method-driven. With the development ofincreasingly versatile computer programs and the availability of natural languageIn K. Fiedler (Ed.)(2007). Social Communication (pp. 343-359). New York: Psychology Press.

Goal Conflict in Juror Assessments of Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Recent tort reform debates have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of how jurors assess damages. Two studies investigated whether jurors are able to appropriately compartmentalize compensatory and punitive damages. In Study 1, mock jurors read a trial summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages in one of three conditions: (a) compensatory damages only, (b) punitive damages for the plaintiff, or (c) punitive damages for the state treasury. Results suggest that jurors who did not have the option to award punitive damages inflated compensatory damages via pain and suffering awards. Jurors were marginally more likely to award punitive damages when the plaintiff was the recipient. Mock jurors in Study 2 read a similar case summary and were asked to assess compensatory and punitive damages. Two factors were varied in Study 2: (a) egregiousness of the defendants conduct, and (b) the recipient of any punitive damages (the plaintiff vs. a consortium of state funds). Jurors were more likely to award punitive damages when the defendants conduct was more egregious and when the plaintiff was the recipient. The results suggest leakage between compensatory and punitive damage judgments, contrary to the laws mandate.

Accommodation and institutional talk: communicative dimensions of police-civilian interactions

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) has been described as one of the most prominent theories in communication in general (see Littlejohn & Foss, 2005; Tomsha & Hernandez, 2007) as well as in the social psychology of language in particular (Tracy & Haspel, 2004), and has currency in several disciplines (see Meyerhoff, 1998). Indeed, from its initial roots in accent, speech style, and bilingual modifications (see Sachdev & Giles, 2004), CAT has expanded into being an ‘interdisciplinary model of relational and identity processes in communicative interaction’ (Coupland & Jaworski, 1997, pp.241–242). Research has applied the theory (e.g., Coupland & Giles, 1988; Williams, Gallois & Pittam, 1999) in a wide variety of nations, cultures and languages; to study communication between different social groups (cultures, genders, generations and abilities); in different social and institutional contexts (in organizations, in the health care system, the courtroom, or simply the streets); and through different media (face-to-face interactions, but also radio, telephone, email, etc.). Although the majority of work has been conducted from neo-positivistic and experimental frameworks to enhance control of the variables being investigated, the methodologies and disciplines invoked have, nonetheless, been impressively broad (see Giles, 1984; Giles, Coupland & Coupland, 1991).