Perceptions of unresponsive others: Attributions,attraction, understandability,and memory of their utterances

Analyses of the rules governing conversation have frequently pointed to the existence of a rule dictating that responses to others' communications should be relevant. Unfortunately, there have been few systematic theoretical analyses of the consequences of violations of the response relevance rule. The present research was designed to extend our previous analyses of the consequences of responsiveness in dyadic interaction to examine in detail the effects of irrelevant response on processing and retention of response content, and attributions concerning the speaker. It was argued that irrelevant responses will be processed and retained more poorly, because the preceding utterance will provide a less adequate context for their interpretation. In addition, it was argued that unresponsiveness will generally be attributed to the lack of one or more of four factors previously suggested to facilitate responsiveness: attention to the other, understanding of the preceding communication, adequate response repertoire, or motivation to be responsive—along with situational (e.g., distraction) or dispositional (e.g., incompetence) reasons for their absence. These processes were examined in the context of a political debate, in which the relevance of candidates' answers to the questions was varied. As expected, response relevance was shown to facilitate processing (as indexed by ratings of clarity and organization) and retention (both recall and recognition memory) of response content. Further, the unresponsive speaker was perceived to have less clearly understood the questions asked, to possess less knowledge of the facts and understanding of the issues concerning the questions raised, and to be less motivated to discuss the issues raised (as opposed to facilitating his self-presentational goals). Moreover, those attributions were accompanied by attributions of dispositional incompetence. Finally, the unresponsive candidate was perceived as less attractive than the responsive candidate.