Mindfulness and Interpersonal Communication

Journal of Social Issues, Spring, 2000 by Judee K. Burgoon, Charles R. Berger, Vincent R. Waldron

Interpersonal Communication Praxis and the Management of Mindfulness

In the remainder of this article, we present a cursory but illustrative sampling of real-world applications in which communication is used to manage mindfulness. A notable feature of this applied research is its focus on communication competence and the role of mindfulness in facilitating (or inhibiting) desirable personal or relational outcomes. A question summarizes one overriding concern of this research: Does mindfulness facilitate communication success? A previous review examined the intersection of communication and mindlessness at the molecular level of language and speech behavior (J. K. Burgoon & Langer, 1995). Here we review selected applied studies that examine communication at more molar and tactical levels.

Detecting Scams, Hoaxes, and Other Deceits

Deceit, as a pervasive feature of the contemporary social landscape, has become a recognized social problem that penetrates all aspects of public and private life but is especially troublesome for subpopulations like the elderly, who are easy prey for scam artists and investment hoaxes. For a law enforcement officer interrogating a suspect, a citizen judging a politician's sincerity, or a widower assessing whether televised products and offers are legitimate, the question becomes one of whether heightened suspiciousness and attention to particular sets of cues improve one's accuracy in distinguishing truths from lies, evasions, strategic omissions, and the like. By contrast, for those intending to perpetrate deceit--such as physicians shielding patients from too much bad news or military personnel protecting national security by withholding top secret information--the issue becomes one of whether rehearsal or planning leads to more creative and believable messages, that is, ones that evade detection of decep tive intent.

Extensive research examining this issue offers useful insights into how deceptive messages are encoded, either intentionally or unintentionally, by sources, and how message recipients attempt to detect deception (for summaries, see Buller & Burgoon, 1994, 1996; J. K. Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996; Zuckerman & Driver, 1985). On the decoding side, mindless acceptance of messages at face value can lead to deleterious consequences. Despite the relatively high frequency of deceit in day-to-day conversation, people exhibit strong biases toward assuming others are truthful (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; McCornack & Parks, 1986; Schul & Burnstein, 1998; Turner, Edgley, & Olmstead, 1975). Rumors, unwarranted boasts, insincere flattery, equivocations, unrealistic advertisement claims, and "special deals" are among the many message forms that require mindful analysis by the message recipient.

One way this can be accomplished is to prepare for potentially invalid information by entertaining multiple interpretations of it (Schul, Burnstein, & Bardi, 1996). In this case, forewarned is forearmed. A second way is to adopt a more wary stance. Being alerted that sources are of questionable character or messages are of dubious truth value can prompt greater surveillance, second-guessing, and consideration of alternate explanations that seem more plausible than the one implied by the speaker (Hewes, 1995; Hewes & Graham, 1989). Yet heightened suspicion can also backfire, especially if it is chronic, by leading message recipients to misjudge truthful information as deceptive (J. K. Burgoon, Buller, Ebesu, & Rockwell, 1994; McCornack & Levine, 1990). A third approach to achieving mindful processing of deceit is tuning into nonverbal and verbal cues of deceit. Unfortunately, not only are there few reliable indicators, but message recipients also tend to focus on nondiagnostic information such as nervousness or eye contact, which message senders are more likely to control successfully, rather than more revealing vocal and verbal information. Questioning strategies that force respondents to answer spontaneously and to repeat earlier information that can be checked for consistency, or that require coordinating current answers with previous ones, may enable recipients to uncover inconsistencies. Thus, mindful detection of deceit is better served by attention to the plausibility and consistency of verbal content and to congruence between verbal and nonverbal channels than by attempting to spot specific telltale signs. Other tactics that have proven useful include focusing on expectancy violations and attending to vocal changes, which can betray liars (Buller, Burgoon, Buslig, & Roiger, 1996; DePaulo, Lanier, & Davis, 1983; Feeley & deTurck, 1995; Fiedler & Walka, 1993; Hocking & Leathers, 1980). Overall, selective mindfulness, in terms of both the frequency with which one becomes suspicious and the communication signals that receive close scrutiny, is most likely to lead to improved deception detection, along with maintaining the flexible, tentative stance toward the veracity and validity of information that is the hallmark of mindfulness.