zyxwvutsrq

zyxwvutsr
Human Communication Research
Summer 1982, Vol. 8, No. 4, 299-316

AWKWARD SILENCES: BEHAVIORAL ANTECEDENTS AND

CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONVERSATIONAL LAPSE

MARGARET L . McLAUGHLIN and MICHAEL J . CODY

Texas Tech University

zyxw
Audio tape-recordings of 30-minute conversations between pairs of strangers (N=90)
were scored for the frequency and duration of conversnrional lapses, interactive si-
lences of three or more seconds occumnp at the recognizable completion of a turn-con-
structional unit. Ten-utterance segments of conversation immediately prior and imme-
diately subsequent to lapses were transcribed from the tapes of45 of the conversations
characterized by multiple lapses. Pre-and postlapse behaviors were coded as (A) (B)
discloses, questions, edifies, acknowledges, advises, interprets, confirms, reflects.
Also coded were gaps and laughter outbursts. Lag sequential analysis of the prelapse

zyxwvutsrqp
data indicated that behavior sequences prior to lapses were characterized by a pattern
of “minimal response” by one of the participants. Postlapse sequences were charac-
terized by the presence of question-answer adjacency pairs.

Perhaps you are one of those people who have a wealth of will often resort to noisy “masking” behaviors to
interesting subjects at their conversational fingertips, but fill in the silence-coughing, clearing the throat,
are scared to make use of them. Don’t be afraid of being
labeled an intellectual or an egghead. This doesn’t mean sighing, whistling, yawning, drumming the

zyxwvut
that in the midst of an awkward silence a bright young thing
should blast the silence with something she learned in An-
cient History: “Did you know that Socrates’ wife, Xan-
thippe, used to pare his toenailsfor him?” Such a conver-
sational contribution, apropos of nothing said before,
would be effective all right, but in the wrong way! However.
if the conversation were on toenuils, think what a smash
tidbit this would be.
-Robert Loeb, She-Manners
Social encounters whose primary focus is con-
versation (for example, the dinner date or the di-
fingertips; or they may utter meaningless
“sociocentric sequences” (Bernstein, 1962) such
as “but uh,” “so,” and “anyway” in the hope of
nudging a partner into taking a turn (Jefferson,
1978). Newman (1978) has established that in-
teractive silences are not perceived as uncomforta-
ble as long as they are sanctioned by some ongoing
activity, and, indeed, thoughtful restaurateurs
often provide their patrons with informative
placemats to help them over the conversational
rough spots. Similarly, hostesses display “conver-

nner party) provide the ordinary individual with
one of life’s more severe tests of communicative
competence. On such occasions participants oper-
ate under an implicit but nonetheless very compel-
ling obligation to sustain interaction so as to avoid
or at least minimize potential gaps (Sacks, Scheg-
loff, & Jefferson, 1978). As most students of so-
cial interaction are aware, lapses in conversation
are so potentially embarrassing that participants
Margaret L . McLarrghlin (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Ur-
bana-Champaign, 1972) and Michael J . Cody (Ph.D.. Michi-
gan State University. 1977) are associate professor and assistant
professor, respectively. in the Department of Speech Commu-
nication at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409.
zyx
sation pieces” on their coffee tables. However,
such “environmentally explicit” (Planalp &
Tracy, 1980) cues to topic management may not
always be available, or may be exhausted early on,
and interactants may find themselves having t o fall
back upon their own resources.
A number of studies have demonstrated that per-
sons who are given to long switching pauses in
conversation (long response latencies following the
completion of a previous turn by partner) tend to be
less socially skilled. Arkowitz, Lichtenstein,
McGovem, & Hines (1975) found that males with
low dating frequency had significantly more 10-
second response latencies than males with high
dating frequencies in a 10-minute conversation
300 zyxwv
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
zyxw HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982

with a female confederate. Biglan, Glaser, & Dow imply that the next turn by partner ought to be an
(1980) found that socially nonanxious women had answer (Sacks, 1972), while other kinds of utter-
significantly fewer four-second silences during a ances (“minimal responses”) (Fishman, 1978)

zyxwvuts
five-minute interaction than socially anxious such as acknowledgements (“yeah,” “uh huh,”
women. Dow, Glaser, & Biglan (1980) found that “right”), laughter outbursts, and mirror responses
when females talked to males, the number of four- or refections lack such implicativeness. Consider,
second silences was negatively correlated with for example, the following three conversational
ratings of social skill. Wiemann (1977) has treated segments:
three-second switching pauses as interaction man-
agement errors, and has found that, in combination 1
with interruptions and unilateral topic switches,
B. I think after a while they-their country’s
long latencies of response are related to lower rat-
gonna=
ings of communicative competence. ( 1
In most of the studies relating length of switch- A. they ‘re
ing pause to competency ratings, the use of a
trained confederate as a conversational partner has B. =go under.
A. Really.

zyxwv
enabled the investigators to examine interactive
B. You know, when it does it’ll be-then it’ll be
silences at the monadic level. We propose, how- complete chaos, and nobody’ll be safe, especially
ever, that it is also appropriate to treat lapses in Americans.
conversation as a dyadic phenomenon. In the first A. U h huh.
place, there is evidence for the presence of re- B. So-oh.
A. Hmm.
sponse matching tendencies (i.e., interspeaker in-
(3.3 second silence)

zyxwvutsr
fluence) for a number of noncontent speech vari- B. So that’s my answer.
ables including switching pause (Cappella &
2
Planalp, 1981). In the second place, current em- B. We have to, you know, literally just introduce
pirical treatments of the switching pause tend to ourselves to everybody and tell ’em, you know,
operate with the unstated assumption that should to-to come to Young Life, when it starts up two
interactant A be the last to speak prior to an ex- months from now and they just kinda=
tended silence, interactant B is, if not blamewor- ( 1
Uh huh.
thy, then at the very least behaving incompetently A.
for having failed promptly to take a turn. If we take B. =“What’s Young Life?”
the position that conversation is a coordinated ac- A. Yeah. Ha ha.
tivity, and that it is sustained through the achieve- B. It’s really hard to deal with.
ment of structural coherence, then it should be A. Yeah.
(3.1 second silence)
clear that if a lapse in conversation is to be counted
as a failure, it is a failure responsibility for which 3
B. 1 get up about 5:20.
ought to be jointly shared by both participants. For A. Yeah.
turn-taking to proceed smoothly, interactants must B. Go to workout at 5:45, work out-work out for
produce turns that are not only occasioned by that an hour and 15 minutes in the morning and
which preceded them, but sequentially implicative then-except on Wednesdaysdn Saturdays we
for that which follows them (Jefferson, 1978). By work out for three hours and every afternoon
from 3:30 to 6:OO.
sequentially implicative we mean that A ’ s antece- A. Yeah.
dent turn in effect “instructs” B as to what sort of (3.0 second silence)
subsequent turn s/he might appropriately take.
Certain types of utterances, for example questions, Each of the three segments has the property that,
are high in sequential implicativeness, for they although A was the last to speak prior to the lapse

zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
in conversation, and B as a consequence is
“charged with” a 3+ second response latency, the
McLaughlin and Cody
lapse is clearly due at least in part to A ’ s consistent
failure to provide anything more than minimal re-
sponses to B ’ s utterances. B must fall back on, and
ultimately exhaust, hidher own resources since A
opts to take passing turns rather than advance the
topic. On the other hand, it could of course be ar-
gued that B is still “at fault” for failing to adjust to
A ’ s apparent lack of interest in the topic. The
lapses seem to result from a failure of accommo-
dation on the part of both interactants.
Inasmuch as achieving a sustained conversation
is a collaborative activity, we propose to treat con-
versational lapses as a property of the dyadic in-
teraction pattern. Specifically, we offer the fol-
lowing operational definition of a lapse: an ex-
zyxwvutsrq
tended silence ( 3 seconds or more) at a transition-
relevant place, in a dyadic encounter the focus of
which is conversation. A lapse is an extended si-
lence that occurs subsequent to the recognizable
completion of a turn-constructional unit (Sacks,
Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1978) such as a sentence,
independent clause, phrase, or lexical unit. Com-
pletion of a turn-constructional unit may be recog-
nized not only by grammatical completeness but
also by the display of turn-yielding cues such as
falling intonation at the juncture between clauses,
or a “drawl” on the final or stressed syllable of the
unit (Duncan, 1972). Lapses are to be distin-
guished from hesitation or breathing pauses, which
occur after the initiation of a turn-constructional
unit but prior to its completion. The definition of a
lapse incorporates both switching latencies (B ’ s
[A’s] latency of response in taking the floor fol-
lowing A ’ s b ’ s ] recognizable completion of a
turn-constructional unit) and initiative-time laten-
cies (Matarazzo & Weins, 1967) (A’s [B’sl latency
of response in re-taking the floor when hidher
partner fails to respond at the recognizable com-
pletion of a turn-constructional unit; that is, fails to
respond to turn-yielding cues). In short, lapses
occur whenever A , the last speaker before the
lapse, has an initiative-time latency insufficiently
brief to “transform” the lapse into a quasi-hesita-
tion pause (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1978),
zyxwv
z
and whenever B fails in promptly taking hidher
turn.
301
In offering a definition of conversational lapse,
we specifically exclude the following: silence fol-
lowing an interrogative turn-constructional unit by
A (B’s “thinking about” the answer constitutes a
legitimate excuse for silence); silence following
floor-holding cues such as terminal filled pauses
and/or grammatical incompleteness (Ball, 1975);
silence coincident with legitimate activity (reading
over a topic list, a dinner menu, or a program;
searching for a handkerchief); and silence repre-
senting discretion in the presence of a third party.
We have fixed the definition of “extended si-
lence” at three seconds or more for a number of
reasons. First, studies by Matarazzo and Weins
(1967) indicate that the mean duration of initia-
tive-time latencies (the point at which A re-takes
the floor having realized that B isn’t going to take a
turn) is slightly over 3 seconds (3.3 sec.). This
woutd suggest that a pause just under 3.3 seconds
is experienced as uncomfortable. Second, other re-
searchers have indicated that silences as brief as 3
(Weimann, 1977) and 4 seconds (Biglan, Glaser,
& Dow, 1980; Dow, Glaser, & Biglan, 1980)
make a significant difference in ratings of social
competence. Finally, even though some individ-
uals may have consistently long switching or ini-
tiative-time latencies across partners and across
conversations with the same partner, Goldman-
Eisler (1968, pp. 14-15) reported finding no cases
of individuals whose pause lengths in spontaneous
speech were greater than 3 seconds. Jaffe and
Feldstein (1970) found that for pairs of females en-
gaged in 30-minute conversations, mean duration
of switching pauses was less than 1 second (.664).’
Thus, it would appear that a conversational lapse
of 3 seconds or more would be not only sufficiently
long to have a significant effect on conversational
structure and subsequent skill evaluations, but also
would be too long to correspond to any individual
speaker’b noimal pause duration.
It is our intention in this report to examine the
textual antecedents and consequents of conversa-
tional lapses as a dyadic phenomenon. We are in-
terested in determining not only what patterns of
302 zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxw HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH I Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982
interaction are most probable prior to a lapse, but
also what patterns of exchange characterize par-
zyxwvuts
ticipants’ efforts to extricate themselves from this
potential source of embarrassment.
In order to sustain conversation, interactants
must collaborate to produce sequences of con-
nected turns at each transition-relevant place. Not
only is each obligated to produce a cohesive turn
(Vucinich, 1977) that is logically occasioned by
some prior utterance or utterances, but each must
also achieve an implicative turn, which effectively
constrains the substance and mode of response of
the partner’s subsequent utterances.
The ordinary way in which connected turns are
accomplished is by advancing the topic. Schank
(1977) has proposed a set of rules that govern the
speaker’s choice of responses to a previous utter-
ance. Schank works from the premise that a sub-
sequent turn must simultaneously maintain the
current topic (its occasioning aspect) and introduce
potential new ones (its imp/icati\ie aspect). A
“potential topic” represents the intersection of two
sets: the reduced old topic, and the new topic
(Schank, 1977). The reduced old topic is some
siibset of elements contained in the previous or oc-
casioning turn; importantly, it is not isomorphic
with the complete set of elements in the occasion-
ing turn. Suppose, for example, we had an occa-
sioning utterance:
A. My math professor showed up for class this
morning with a hangover.
and the subsequent utterance:
B. Math is difficult enough without hung-over
profs.
The reduced old topic, the set of elements that ap-
pear in both utterances, is X=(math, professor,
hangover). Excluded are the elements (class,
showing up). The new topic is composed of the
intersection of the set of elements from the reduced
old topic, and the set of new elements introduced
in the subsequent turn, in this case “being dif-
ficult.” Thus, the set of elements for the potential
topic at the completion of B ’ s utterance is
X=(math, professor, hangover, being difficult).
(We of course do not rule out the possibility of a
“topic pop”: persons often have recourse to a set
of conversational elements occasioned by turns
considerably prior to the immediately preceding
one) (Schank, 1977).
From the foregoing analysis it is clear that cer-
tain modes of response, such as acknowledging,
laughing, and “mirroring” or reflecting fail to ad-
vance the topic either ( 1 ) because their elements,
stated or implicit, are identical to the original set of
elements in the occasioning utterance, or (2) they
simultaneously fail to reduce the old topic and pro-
vide no elements for the new topic. Consequently
we would anticipate that interaction sequences
prior to lapses in a conversation will frequently be
characterized by such minimal responses. Fishman
(1978) has suggested that, at least among males,
zyxwvu
minimal responses such as “uh huh” and “right”
are actively employed to discourage interaction.
While certain modes of response seem likely to
inhibit topic advancement, others, like question-
ing, seem likely to facilitate it. One obvious way to
achieve sequential implicativeness in an utterance
zyx
is to produce the first member of an adjacency
pair. Adjacency pairs are two-, or sometimes
three-utterance sequences, the first utterance of
which occasions the second, the second utterance
of which is implied by the first (Schegloff, 1968;
Nofsinger, 1975; Jefferson & Schenkein, 1977;
Garvey, 1977). The first member of an adjacency
pair regulates who is to respond, and what mode of
response is to be employed (Benoit, 1980). Well-
known adjacency pairs include question/answer,
summons/answer, greeting/greeting, closing/
closing, challenge/response, insulthesponse, and
so on (Benoit, 1980). Also highly implicative are
the first utterances of longer strings of turns, such
as the “side sequences” identified by Jefferson
(1972), in which interactants briefly detour from
the ongoing talk in order to clarify some side issue
raised by a prior utterance (“last year? No, we met
her year before last”) and return thereto when the
side issue is settled (“OK, last year. So any-
way. . .”). Side sequences, however, are unlikely
to be routinely used to sustain interaction, inas-
much as most people dislike being interrupted to
 McLaughlin and Cody
zyxwvut
satisfy the needs of the literal-minded. Of the adja-
cency pairs, only question/answer seems to have
much utility for sustaining interaction, since ques-
zyxwvutsr
tion can be initiated over and over again, while
greeting/greeting and closing/closing sequences
may be performed only once per encounter, and
insult/response and challenge/response have a clear
potential for terminating conversation altogether.
Kent, Davis, & Shapiro (1978) found that ques-
tions fulfill an important conversational function in
turning over the floor, and that when they are not
available as a conversational resource, the entire
zyxwvu
structure of interaction is disrupted. Consequently
we anticipate that question/answer adjacency pairs
will be highly likely to occur subsequent to a lapse
in conversation, as participants work to restore
connectedness. (That answer itself is not particu-
zyxwvutsr
larly implicative for a third [or A ’ s next] turn
seems likely to be overlooked in the face of an im-
mediate and pressing felt need to end the silence).
The study reported here was designed to test the
following hypotheses relating to the conversational
lapse:
1 . In dyads whose conversations are characterized
by multiple (three or more) lapses, members
will assign their partners significantly lower
ratings of communicative competency than will
members of dyads whose conversations are
characterized by fewer lapses.
2. In dyads whose conversations are characterized
by multiple (three or more) lapses, members
will report significantly less mutual satisfaction
with the encounter than will members of dyads
whose conversations are characterized by fewer
lapses.
3. In dyadic conversations characterized by multi-
ple lapses (three or more), behavior sequences
most likely to occur prior to a lapse will contain
elements of minimal response (acknowl-
edgements, laughter, reflections) by one of the
participants.
4. In dyadic conversations characterized by multi-
ple lapses (three or more), behavior sequences
most likely to occur subsequent to a lapse will
contain questiodanswer adjacency pairs.
303 z
Subjects
METHOD
Subjects were 180 undergraduates (92 females
and 88 males) enrolled in introductory courses in
interpersonal communication at Texas Tech Uni-
versity.
Procedures
Data were collected during regularly scheduled
class periods, at the beginning of which each of
two experimenters arrived separately at one of two
classrooms, where waiting subjects were given a
brief verbal description of the study in which they
were to participate. Subjects were told only that the
experimenters were interested in studying conver-
sations between persons meeting for the first time,
and that they would be asked to participate in such
a conversation for a 30-minute period. Subjects
were informed that their conversations would be
audio tape-recorded, and that they would be
supplied with a list of potential topics, although
they were free to converse on any topic or topics
that they wished.
‘To one of the classrooms, the experimenter
brought a large, deep box containing blank, 30-
minute audio cassettes. Subjects were asked to
select a cassette from the box and then to print their
names on the label. Subjects were instructed to
make a note of the number of the room where they
would meet their prospective partner; this number
was printed on the cassette. The tapes were then
returned to the box, and subjects were shown by
the experimenter to the rooms where they were to
wait for their partners-one of 25 identical com-
munication training rooms equipped with two
chairs and a desk-top into which an audio tape-re-
corder was built.
Subjects in a second classroom were asked to
select a tape from the box, and then to determine
whether or not they were acquainted with the per-
son whose name appeared thereon. Subjects who
drew a tape with the name of an acquaintance were
allowed to draw again. When each of the subjects
had been paired with a stranger, subjects were
304 zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxw HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982
asked to write their own names on the cassette
introduced to their partners. Ninety dyads were
formed by this procedure-24
male-female, and 26 female-female (data from 60
of the dyads were collected in an earlier study
[McLaughlin et al., 19811; 30 of the dyads were
newly formed for the present investigation). Once
in their rooms, subjects were informed once again
zyxwv
below that of their partner. Subjects were then led
to their respective training rooms, where they were
male-male, 40
that they might converse on any topic or topics of
mutual interest, and that they could cover as many
different topics as they liked. Subjects were, how-
ever, provided with a list of possible topics, devel-
oped from Berger’s (1973) findings on content
themes characteristic of the initial phases of dyadic
z
acquaintanceship: “things about your hometown,”
“places you’ve been,” “people you know,” “the
kind of person you are,” “likes and dislikes,”
“hobbies,” “vacations,” “things about your par-
ents and families,” “attitudes on politics and reli-
gion,’’ “hopes and plans for the future,” and
“things you’ve done.” The order of presentation
zyxwvutsr
of suggested topics was systematically rotated.
Subjects were informed that when the tape recorder
shut off, in approximately 30 minutes, they were
expected to return to their respective classrooms.
Having determined that subjects understood the
nature of their task, the E turned on the recorder,
announced the participants’ names into the mic-
rophone, and left them alone.
When subjects returned to their classrooms, they
zyxwvutsrq
were asked to complete two instruments: the 30-
item communicative competency measure
(Weimann, 1977), on which they rated their re-
spective partners, and the 34-item “acquaintance”
form of the communication satisfaction measure
(Hecht, 1978).
Coding of conversations
Two trained coders each coded 45 conversations
(12 male-male, 20 female-male, and 13 female-
female pairs). For each of the 90 conversations, the
frequency and duration of conversational lapses
were recorded. A lapse was not scored if there
were any indication, verbal or nonverbal, that a
silence coincided with participants’ examination of
their topic lists. Intercoder reliability in scoring for
conversational lapse was assessed as follows. Ten
tapes were selected at random and scored for fre-
quency and duration of lapses by both coders. Lo-
cation of the lapse on the tape was noted. One
coder was arbitrarily designated as a criterion
coder, and each lapse scored by the criterion coder
was treated as a unit to be scored by both coders. If
the criterion coder scored a lapse as 3.1 seconds,
for example, which the second coder failed to
score, then the scores compared for that unit were,
respectively, 3.1 and 0.0. For the 10 tapes selected
at random, the criterion coder scored 49 lapses.
Interrater reliability was r = .87.
For those conversations characterized by three
or more lapses (N=45), two of the lapses were
selected at random for analysis. For each of the
lapses, for all 45 conversations, the 10 utterances
immediately prior and the 10 utterances immedi-
ately subsequent to the lapse were transcribed. An
utterance was scored, following Stiles (1978b), for
each dependent clause, each nonrestrictive depen-
dent clause, each acknowledgement, term of ad-
dress, or instance of a multiple predicate. Thus, for
example, a single turn by Speaker A
A. I’m not in any hurry.! I want to find out what I
want to do with the rest of my life./ How about
you?/
could be composed of multiple distinct utterances,
each of which is an independent clause.
Utterances in each of the 180 pre- or postlapse
segments were coded for response mode using an
eight-category scheme developed by Stiles (1978a,
1978b).’ Utterances were scored as (1) disclosure
(the speaker reports hidher own cognitions, emo-
tions, wants, needs, attitudes, impressions, and
intentions; for example, “I thought the SAT test
was hard”); ( 2 ) question (the speaker requests in-
formation or direction from the other; for example,
“Are you a junior?”); (3) edification (the speaker
reports what s/he believes to be objective, exter-
nally verifiable information; for example, “My
 zyxwv
zy
zyxwvu
Mchughlin and Cody 305

roommate last semester took 19 hours”); (4) ac- A discloses A. /I thought they’d of got
knowledgement (a content-free response mode in run over./
which the speaker acknowledges receipt of com- B discloses B. /I thought Steelers would
beat ‘em a lot worse than
munication from the other; for example, “right,” they did/
“yeah,” “uh huh” in the sense of “I hear you” as B edifies /Rams stayed in the whole
opposed to “I agree with you”); ( 5 ) advisement game./
(the speaker proposes what the other should, must, A confirms A. /Sure did./
might, can, may, or may not do; for example,
“What you oughta do is take that pass-fail”); (6) lapse (6.8 seconds)
interpretation (the speaker reports hislher view of
A questions A. /How do you like i t here?/
the other’s experience, including judgments or B discloses B. /Pretty good./
evaluations of the other; for example, “You’re a B questions /You like it all right?/
pretty easy-going guy”); (7) confirmation (the A discloses A. /It’s all right./
speaker, presuming to understand the other’s ex- B questions B. /What are you majorin’ in?/
perience or point of view, compares it to his or her A edifies A. /Management./
B reflects B. /Management?/
own; for example, “We don’t seem to agree on A edifies A. /Yeah./
that” or “we both know what that means”); (8) A questions /You?/
reflection (the speaker attempts to express the B edifies B. /Range and wildlife major./
other’s experience-summarizes, restates,

clarifies, and paraphrases; for example, “You feel
like you’d like to quit now and come back in the
fall” or “You’re a junior”).
For each conversational lapse selected for anal-
ysis, the last speaker prior to the lapse was arbit-
rarily designated Speaker A . For each utterance,
pre- and postlapse, the speaker code was noted
along with the response mode, producing catego-
ries such as A discloses, B acknowledges, and SO
on. Also recorded were the presence of laughter
outbursts in response to a previous speaker’s utter-
ance, and the presence of gaps, interactive silences
of two or more seconds occurring within 10 utter-
ances prior to or after one of the criterion lapse^.^
In the analysis of data, gap and laugh were treated
as utterance units. The following example should
zyx
Intercoder reliability was established using
Guetzkow’s (1950) procedures. Both coders
scored transcripts of 10-utterance pre- and post-
lapse segments for each of the 16 response mode
categories, as well as the categories gap and
laugh. Guetzkow’s p was .87, with a lower limit
of .79 and an upper limit of .974. The percentage
of intercoder agreement ranged from 80% (confir-
mation) to 100% (question, laugh, g a p ) . Unitizing
reliability (Guetzkow, 1950) was .02.
RESULTS
Communication Competency and Communication
Satisfaction measures

zyxwvutsrqp
suffice to illustrate the method of coding. We have

zyxwvutsr
edited out intra-turn hesitation pauses, noun-only Of the 90 dyads participating in the investiga-
false starts, and so on, in order to simplify the il- tion, both members of the dyad completed the
lustration. postconversation ratings of partner’s competency
A questions A. /How’d you like it?/ and own satisfaction in 81 of the cases; 40 of these
B discloses B. /Pretty good game./ were multiple-lapse dyads and 41 were dyads with

zyxwvuts
B discloses /Really surprised me./ two or fewer lapses. On each instrument, total
B discloses /I didn’t think it was gonna
be that good./
scores for each member of the dyad were averaged
A discloses A. /I thought the Rams was to obtain a measure of mean rated partner compe-
gonna fall off early./ tency and mean rated satisfaction for the pair.
B acknowledges B. /Yeah./ Alpha reliability was .91 for the communicative
306
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH I Vol. 8. No. 4 Summer 1982
competency instrument and .92 for the communi-
zyxwvu
cation satisfaction measure.
Dyads with multiple conversational lapses
mutually assigned significantly lower ratings of
communication competency (x=6 1.35) (lower
scores correspond to greater rated competency)
than dyads experiencing fewer lapses @=55.24)
(r=2.58; df=79; p<.Ol). Hypothesis 1 was thus
confirmed. Dyads with multiple conversational
lapses reported experiencing less satisfaction
@=77.38) with the encounter than dyads with two
or fewer lapses @=71.08) (lower scores corre-
zyxwvut
spond to greater rated satisfaction), although the
difference just missed significance at p < .07
(t= 1.45, df=79). Hypothesis 2 was not con-
firmed.
Behavior Sequences Antecedent and Subsequent to
Lapses
zyxwvu
Separate analyses were performed on the pre-
lapse and postlapse data, using the event lag option
of Sackett’s program for lag sequential analysis
(Sackett, 1979). In initial runs, lapse was treated
as a criterion, and contingent probabilities were
obtained for each of the 18 coded “events” (A)
(B) discloses, questions, edifies, acknowledges,
advises, interprets, confirms, reflects; laugh; gap)
at lags I through 10, lagging both forwards (for the
zyxwvutsrq
postlapse segments) and backwards (for the pre-
lapse segments). Where necessary, certain of the
probability estimates were adjusted to correct for
the following: (1) two of the events, lapse and
gap, could not by definition succeed themselves
(Gottman & Bakeman, 1979); (2) B-events could
not, by definition, appear at the first lag prior to a
lapse. Transition matrices were also obtained for
all 18 coded behaviors, from lags 1-10, for both
prelapse and postlapse data.
Prelapse Behavior Sequences
Table 1 presents the contingency data for the
ninety 10-utterance segments, lagged backwards
from the criterion, lapse, at steps 1-4. Included in
the table are only those behaviors which (1) were
significantly likely to precede the criterion at each
zyxwvu
zyxw
successive lag, and (2) which had an absolute fre-
quency of occurrence of at least 4. Table 1 reports
the expected probability that the behavior will
occur; its observed probability of occurrence, at a
specific lag, given the criterion; the Z value asso-
ciated with the difference between observed and
expected probabilities; and the 95% confidence
interval around the expected probability estimate.
Tables 2 and 3 present, respectively, the lag-1 and
lag-2 transition matrices for the prelapse data.
In Hypotheses 3 and 4, we proposed that lapses
would be both preceded and followed by certain
kinds of behavior sequences. In order to evaluate
these propositions, it is first necessary to determine
if indeed there are recognizable chains of behavior
surrounding lapses. We define a behavior sequence
as being afully verified antecedent to the criterion
if (1) its first-step behavior has a significant lag-I
probability of preceding the criterion (lapse); (2) its
second-step behavior has both (a) a significant
lag-2 transition probability from the criterion and
(b) significant lag- 1 transition probability from the
behavior immediately following it in the sequence
(Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1977); (3) its
third-step behavior has (a) a significant lag-3
transition probability from the criterion, (b) a sig-
nificant lag- 1 transition probability from the im-
mediately preceding behavior, and (c) a significant
lag-2 transition probability from the behavior two
steps preceding, and so on. A partially verified
antecedent sequence is a behavior chain which
satisfies the constraints that (1) its first-step be-
havior has a significant lag- 1 transition probability
from the criterion; (2) its second step has a signifi-
cant lag- 1 transition probability from the immedi-
ately preceding step, but not a significant lag-2
transition probability from the criterion; and so
on.q Consequent (postlapse) behavior sequences
are verified similarly to antecedent sequences. The
presence of minimal response events in 60% of the
verified prelapse behavior sequences will be taken
as evidence in support of the third hypothesis. The
presence of questiodanswer adjacency pairs in
60% of the verified postlapse sequences will be
taken as evidence in support of Hypothesis 4.
Before presenting our findings, we must note
that in choosing to code transcripts of 10-utterance
 McLaughlin and Cody zyxwv 307

TABLE 1
Utterance Contingency Data for 90 Prelapse Segments zyxw
w
LAUGH
A REFLECTS
.07 .05
LAG 1

3.20""
zyxwvuts
.03-.06
.07 .02
1.AG 2

8.71*** .01-.03

A CONFIRMS
A INTERPRETS
A ADVISES
A kKNGhDGES .30 .07 27.54*'* .06-.09
A EDIFIES
A QUESTIONS
A DISCLOSES .32 .15 15.24'** .13-.17
B REFLECTS

zyxwvutsrqpon
B CONFIRMS
B INTERPRETS
B ADVISES
B ACKNOWLEDGES .07 .05 2.56" .OO-.06
B EDIFIES
B QUESTIONS
B DISCLOSES .18 .12 3.49*'* .08-.15

GAP .05 .02 4.12". .01-.03

W G H .10 .05 8.24**' .03-.06
A REFLECTS
A CONFIRMS
A INTERPRETS
A ADVISES
A ACKNOWLEDGES .10 .07 3.30*** .06-.09 .09 .07 1.96' .06-.09
A EDIFIES
A QUESTIONS
A DISCLOSES
B REFLECTS
B CONFIRUS
B INTERPRETS
B ADVISES
B ACKNOWLEDGES .07 .05 2.56.' .OO-.06
B EDIFIES
B QUESTIONS
B DISCWSES .20 .12 4.75*** .09-.15

zyxwvu
segments around two lapses randomly selected
from each tape, as opposed to coding the complete
transcript of each of the 45 conversations, we sac-
rificed a certain amount of statistical power. Cod-
ing each of the conversations in its entirety would
have increased our sample of lapses from an N of
90 to an N of 425. Additionally, it would have in-
creased our confidence in the estimates of uncon-
ditional probability (expected proportion) for each
of the behavior codes. However, the distribution of
lapses across dyads in the multiple-lapse group was
by no means uniform: one pair had as many as 54
lapses in the course of their conversation. Includ-
ing all of their lapses in our sample would have
meant that 10% of the data would have been con-
tributed by only one of the 45 cases. Since there
were a number of similar "outliers," we opted for
a smaller and more rationally selected sample of
308 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982 zyxw
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxw
TABLE 2

zyxw
Lag-1 Transition Matrix for Prelapse Data

w
v)

2
2<
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
w
v)
I
U
%+
n
w
v)
w
v)

s
v)
c
U
U
4

i
v)

H
I

y.
z
0
U
4
v)

2 H
b
< 2
rn
U
i4
c
w
-1
P
0

U 4 4 U < 4 m m m m m m m

GAP o 2 o 1 o o 2 4 0 o 9-*0 n o 0 2 o 1

LAUGH 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 7 1 5 0 2 0 1 1 7 111".

A REFLECTS 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1

A CONFIRMS 0 I 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 4".

A INTERPRETS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

A ADVISES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

A ACKNOWLEDGES 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 40"*0 16"'

A EDIFIES 2 3 0 2 1 1 1 87"'2 14 3 0 0 2 18'*15 15*'.*7

*'* p < .005
A QUESTIONS 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4"O
' 1 =* p , .01
* p <.os
A DISCLOSES 9***7***0 1 0 0 1 16 1 60"*0 2 3 0 11"'7 3 12

B REFLECTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4"*0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B CONFIRMS 0 3 0 0 0 0 16*'*1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1

B INTERPRETS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

B ADVISES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

B ACKNOWLEDGES 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 26"'O 9*+*l 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

8 EDIFIES 1 7 3 I 0 0 20"'4 10'*'4 1 6***0 0 2 70***1 15

B QUESTIONS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 7"'l 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 4"O

'
B DISCLOSES 4'**7***1 2 0 0 10**'7 2 8 0 S'"0 1 6 9 1 33"'

lapses rather than a larger sample whose nature
might be considerably distorted by the behavior
patterns of an aberrant few. Because sample sizes
do tend to drop off rather sharply as one follows a
proposed behavior sequence through successive
lags away from the criterion, it is appropriate for
the reader to evaluate reported findings of observed
proportion-expected proportion differences in light
of the 95% confidence intervals around the ex-
closes ( N = 2 9 ; Z = 1 5 . 2 4 ; p<.OO5), and A edifies
(N=21; Z = 3 . 2 2 ; p < . 0 0 5 ) . We will attempt to
verify behavior sequences moving "backwards"
from each of these four behaviors.
Sequencing backwards from ( A acknowl-
e d g e s j l a p s e ) : At the second step (lag 2 ) prior to
the criterion, three behaviors have a significant
likelihood of occurrence: gap ( Z = 8 . 7 1 , p<.OO5),
B acknowledges ( Z = 2 . 5 6 , p < . O l ) , and B dis-

zyxwvuts
pected proportion estimates.
Returning to the task at hand, we find that, in in-
specting Table 1 , four behaviors have a significant
probability of occurrence at lag 1. immediately
prior to a lapse: laugh ( N = 6 ; Z = 3 . 2 0 ; ~ < . 0 0 5 )A,
acknowledges (N=27; Z = 2 7 . 5 3 ; p < .005), A dis-
closes ( Z = 3 . 4 9 , p<.005). Examination of the
lag- 1 transition matrix suggests a possible sequ-
ence (B discloses-, A acknowledges-, lapse),
since A acknowledges is highly likely to occur sub-
sequent to B discloses ( Z = 7 . 0 1 , p < . 0 0 5 ) . At lag 3
prior to a lapse we find that B discloses is signifi-

zyxwvuts
zyxwvut
from itself (Z= 13.08, p<.OOI), and a significant
lag-2 transition probability from A acknowledges.
Thus, we have a fully verified sequence (B dis-
McLaughlin and Cody
cantly likely to occur (Z=4.75, p C . 0 0 5 ) . B dis-
closes has a significant lag- 1 transition probability
closes- B discloses+ A acknowledges+ lapse).
There are insufficient cases to extend the sequence
to a fourth lag prior to the criterion.
A second possible sequence is (B edifies-+A ac-
knowledges- lapse). Although the lag-2 proba-
bility of B edifies preceding a lapse is not signifi-
cant, B edifies is significantly likely to precede A
zyxwvu
acknowledges at lag 1 (Z=32.49, p<.005), and
there are in fact 14 such cases in the sample. At lag
3 prior to a lapse, A acknowledges is highly likely
to occur (2=3.30, p<.005); it is significantly
likely to precede B edifies at lag 1; and it is highly
zyxwvuts
likely to precede itself at lag 2 (Z= 16.19,
p<.005). There are in fact 4 cases of ( A acknowl-
edges-, B edifies+ A acknowledges-, lapse). It
is not possible to demonstrate a further antecedent
at lag 4. Figure 1 details the two sequences back-
wards from A acknowledges. Asterisks indicate
that the behavior event at a given step (step s) has a
significant lag-s probability of preceding a lapse.
The symbol "+" indicates that the behavior at that
step has a significant lag- 1 transition probability
from the immediately following behavior, "+ +"
that the behavior has a significant lag-2 transition
probability from the behavior two steps earlier, and
SO
Sequencing backwards from ( A discloses-
lapse): At the second lag prior to a lapse, B ac-
knowledges is highly likely to occur (Z=2.56,
p < . O 1 ) . Inspection of the transition matrix indi-
cates that B acknowledges is significantly likely to
precede A discloses at lag 1 (2=7.77, pC.001).
There are in fact four such cases. Thus we propose
(B acknowledges+ A discloses+ lapse) as a fully
verified sequence. There is an insufficient number
of cases to extend the sequence to a third lag.
Although A discloses is not significantly likely
to precede a lapse at lag 2, an examination of the
lag-1 transition matrix indicates that A discloses is
most likely to be preceded by itself (Z=24.72,
pC.005). Inspection of the data indicate that there
are 11 cases of (A discloses- A discloses-+
z
zyxwv
lapse), and that by virtue of significant lag-2 and
lag-3 probabilities for A discloses preceding itself
(Z=16.46,p<.005;Z=11.10,p<.005) the sequ-
ence can be extended to a third and a fourth lag, at
which we find, respectively, seven and four cases.
309
Thus, we propose (4 discloses- A discloses-, A
discloses+ A discloses+ lapse) as a partially ver-
ified sequence.
Finally, gap has a high likelihood of preceding a
lapse at lag 2 (2=4.12,pC.005) and of preceding
A discloses at lag 1. There are three such cases in
the sample. We thus propose (gap+ A discloses+
lapse) as a fully verified behavior sequence. The
sequence cannot be extended to a third lag. The
behavior sequences backwards from (A dis-
closes+ lapse) are diagrammed in Figure 1.
Sequencing backwardsfrom (A edifies+ lapse):
Although gap, B discloses, and B acknowledges
are highly likely to precede a lapse at lag 2, only B
acknowledges has a significant lag-2 probability of
preceding A edifies ( Z = 7 . 7 7 , ~ < . 0 0 5 ) .Examina-
tion of the data reveal that there are three cases of
(B acknowledges- A edifies- lapse), which
qualifies as a fully verified sequence.
Examination of the transition matrices indicates
that A edifies is most likely to be preceded by itself
at lag 1 and lag 2 (2=24.72, p<.OO5; Z=21.23,
p < .005). Inspection of the data reveals that, of the
21 cases of (A edifies- lapse), there are 15 cases
with an antecedent A edifies at lag 2, and 8 with a
further antecedent A edifies at lag 3. Thus, we pro-
pose as a partially verified sequence (A edifies- A
edifies+ A edifies- lapse). The sequences back-
wards from (A edifies- lapse) are diagrammed in
Figure 1.
z
Sequencing backwards from (laugh+ lapse):
Although laugh has a significantly high likelihood
of occurrence immediately prior to a lapse, there
were only six such cases. Examination of the lag- 1
transition matrix indicates that B discloses is sig-
nificantly likely to precede laugh at lag 1
(Z=9.09,~<.005), and that B discloses is signifi-
cantly likely to precede lapse at lag 2 (Z=3.49,
p<.005). There are three such cases in the data. (B
discloses+ laugh+ lapse) thus qualifies as a fully
verified sequence.
 zyxwvutsrqpo
310

LAG
-

3
zyxwvutsrqp
I
i
*‘B

i
\ 1J

’ I\
c
i
i i zyxwvutsrq
‘LAUGH

zyxwvutsrqponm
i
1
zyxwvuts
HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982

*+*A ACKNOWLEDGES

\ / zyx
zyxwvutsrqponmlk
DISCLOSES + B EDIFIES

‘A QUESTIONS
/ \

+ I
A ACKNOWLEDGES*++
FIGURE 1
Verified Prelapse and Postlapse Behavior Sequences from 90 Conversational Segments

B DISCLOSES*++

B DISCLOSES**

J
+*GAP

UPSE

zyxwvutsrqponm
izyxw
*B QUESTIONS
J
+*B ACKNOWLEDGES A

‘B QUESTIONS

+*A DISCLOSES
‘A DISCLOSES

A EDIFIES+
A DISCLOSES*+*

A DISCLOSES+*

+‘B

*+*B DI CLOSES
‘A E D I F I E S
z
A EDIFIES+

ACKNOWLEEGES A E D I F I E S +

Minimal Responses in Prelapse Behavior
Sequences
As Figure I shows, there are five fully verified
behavior sequences in the prelapse data: (1) (B dis-
closes-+ laugh- lapse);( 2 ) (B discloses- B dis-
closes+ A acknowledges+ lapse); ( 3 ) (Gap- A
discloses+ lapse); ( 4 ) (B acknowledges-, A dis-
closes+ lapse); ( 5 ) (B acknowledges+ A
the criterion behavior, lapse, for steps 1-4. In-
cluded in the table are only those behaviors that
were significantly likely to follow the criterion at
each successive lag, and which had an absolute
frequency of occurrence of 4 or more. Tables 5 and
6 present, respectively, the lag-1 and lag-2 transi-
tion matrices for the postlapse data.
According to Table 4, three of the behaviors
have a significant probability of occurring immedi-

zyxwvutsrq
edifies+ lapse). There are three partially verified
sequences: (6) (A acknowledges-* B edifies+ A
acknowledges- lapse); ( 7 ) (A discloses-, A dis-
closes- A discloses- A discloses4 lapse); ( 8 )
(A edifies+ A edifies- A edifies+ lapse). Of
these eight, ,625 ( ( l ) , (2), (4), ( 5 ) , and (6)) in-
volve patterns of minimal response by one of the
participants, confirming the third hypothesis.
Postlapse Behavior Sequences
Table 4 presents the contingency data for the
ninety 10-utterance segments lagged forward from
ately after a lapse: A questions (N= 19; Z= 14.45;
p<.005); B questions (N= 17; Z = 9 . 2 3 ; ~ < . 0 0 5 ) ;
and B discloses (N= 16; Z = 7 . 8 8 ; ~ < . 0 0 5 ) .
Sequencing forward from (lapse-* A questions):
At lag 2 subsequent to a lapse, behaviors signifi-
cantly likely to occur are A reflects (Z=6.61,
p<.005): A questions (Z=1.84, p C . 0 5 ) ; A con-
firms (Z=6.19, pC.005); A discloses (Z=2.45,
p<.OI); B acknowledges (Z=6.75, p<.005); B
questions (Z = 5.13, p <.005); and B discloses
(Z=2.10, p<.05). While both A questions and B
acknowledges have significant lag- 1 probabilities
of following A questions (2=8.89, pC.005;
 McLaughlin and Cody zyxwv 311

TABLE 3
Lag-2 Transition Matrix for Prelapse Data zyxw
GAP

LAUGH
zyxwvutsrqponm
A REFLECTS
2

0
4'*'2

1 0
1

0
0

0
0

0 0
3 3

0
0

2
4

0
0

0 0
0 0

0
1

0
0

0 3
6 2

0
"'7

A CONFIRMS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6."

zyxwvutsrqp
A INTERPRETS

A ADVISES

zyxwv 0

0
0

D
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

1
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

1
1

0
1

A ACKNOWLEDGES

A EDIFIES

A QUESTIONS

A DISCLOSES

B REFLECTS
0

1
3

0
5*"0

0
8"'l

0
0

0
1

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
13'**2

1
3

0
73'**2

26
1

0
1

1
2

1
0

19

0
41***0

0
0

4**'2

0
2

0
2

0
0

2
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

1
9"'lO

0
23"'O

17

0
9

0
5*

3
15'**

'10

1
10

0
*+* P
*** p
*** p
zyx
<.005
< 01
c.05

B CONFIRMS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4""O 4*"0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0

B INTERPRETS

B ADVISES

B ACKNOWLEDGES
0

0
0

1
0

1
0

1
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

12**'0
0

zyxwvu
3

6*"0
0

0
0

0 0
0

0
0

0
0

5"'3
0

1
0

3
0

zyxwvutsrqp
B EDIFIES 0 3 2 0 0 0 10 10 6"'8 0 lO'**l 0 2 60"'O 14

B QUESTIONS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5"'l 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0

B DISCLOSES 3 7*"0 3 0 0 8"11 2 11 1 0 0 0 6'"11 2 20"

Z = 6 . 4 4 , p<.OO5), only the sequence (lapse- A
questions-, B acknowledges had a sufficient num-
ber of cases to qualify as a fully verified sequence.
Although B edifies was not significantly more
likely to follow a lapse at lag 2 than at any other
lag, B edifies is the most likely behavior to follow
A questions at lag 1 (Z=21.46, p < . 0 0 5 ) . There
were, i n fact, seven cases in the sample of (lup-
se+ A questions+ B edifies). Of these, four are
followed at lag 3 by A acknowledges, which has a
significant lag-3 probability of following a lapse
( Z = 6 . 7 0 ,p < . 0 0 5 ) , and a significant lag-1 proba-
bility of following A edifies. Thus, we propose as a
partially verified sequence (lapse+ A questions+
B edifies-, A acknowledges). The sequences for-
ward from (lapse- A questions) are diagrammed
in Figure 1.
Sequencing forward from (lapse-, LI questions):
Of the behavior codes with a significant probability
of following a lapse at lag 2, only A discloses
(Z=2.45, p < . O l ) has a significant lag-1 transition
probability from B questions (Z=7.47, p c . 0 0 5 ) .
There are three such cases in the sample. Thus, we
propose (lapse+ B questions+ A discloses) as a
fully verified sequence.
Other responses likely to occur following (lap-
se+ B questions) are A edijies, which has a sig-
nificant lag- 1 probability of following B questions
( Z = 2 2 . 6 4 , ~ < . 0 0 5 )and
, B questions, which has a
significant lag- 1 probability of succeeding itself
312 zyxwvutsrq HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982

TABLE 4
Utterance Contingency Data for 90 Postlapse Segments

GAP
LAUGH
A REFLECTS .04 .02 6.61*'.* .01-.03
A CONFIRMS .04 .02 6.19*** .01-.03
A INTERPRETS
A ADVISES
A ACKNOWLEDGES
A EDIFIES
A QUESTIONS .21 .08 14. 45'*+ .07-.10 ~ -10 .09 1.84* .07-.10
A DISCLOSES ' .14 .I2 2.45'. .10-.14

zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrq
B REFLECTS
B CONFIRMS
B INTERPRETS
B ADVISES

zyxwvutsrqpon
B ACKNOWLEDGES .06 .02 6.75**' .01-.03
B EDIFIES

zyxwvutsrq
B QUESTIONS .19 .OS 19.23". .04-.07 .09 .OS 5.13". .04 .07
B DISCLOSES .18 .10 7.88." .08-.12 .12 .lo 2.10-4 .08-.i2

LAG 3 LAC 4
GAP
LAUGH .09 .03 10.06". .02-.04
A REFLECTS
A CONFIRMS
A INTERPRETS
A ADVISES
A ACKNOWLEDGES .08 .04 6.70'** .03-.0S
A EDIFIES
A QUESTIONS .10 .08 1.84' .07- .10
A DISCLOSES

zyxwv
B REFLECTS
B CONFIRMS
B INTERPRETS
B ADVISES
B ACKNOWLEDGES

zyxwvutsrqp
B EDIFIES .27 .21 4.46"' .18-.23

zyxwvutsrq
B QUESTIONS .09 -05 5.13*'* .04-.07
B DISCLOSES .13 .10 3.26"" .08-.12

zy
(Z= 11.95, p < .005). There are three cases of (lap-
s e h B questions4 B questions) and five cases of
(lapse- B questions+ A edifies), both of which
we present as partially verified sequences. The be-
havior sequences forward from (lapse-+ B ques-
tions) are diagrammed in Figure 1.
Sequencing fonvard from (lapse-, B discloses):
tion probabilities from B discloses: A reflects
(Z=6.15, p < . 0 0 5 ) ; A confirms (Z=5.74,
p<.005); and B discloses (Z=30.31, p<.005).
However, inspection of the data indicates that only
the sequence (lapse+ B discloses-, B discloses)
occurs with sufficient frequency to merit reporting.
Since B discloses is significantly likely to follow a
Of the behavior codes significantly likely to follow lapse at lag 3 (Z=3.26, p<.OO5) and to follow it-
a lapse at lag 2, three have significant lag-1 transi- self at lags 1 (2=30.31,p<.005) and 2 (Z=9.94,
 zyxw
McLaughlin and Cody 313

TABLE 5

zyxwvutsr
zyxw
Lag-1 Transition Matrix for Postlapse Data
m '4

GAP

L4UGH
A REFLECTS

A CONFIRJIS
n o
3

2
o
1

0
zyxwvutsrqponm
zyxwvuts
I

n
I
o
n
o
3
o
o
o
n
2

o
1
o

o
o
o
J***~***I

n
o
4-*n
3

3
9"e.n

7
I

o
o
o
I

o
o
n
n
n
I
2

o
o
I o
o
o
o
4

9-0
7-90

I
2

o
4***

n
A INTERPRETS

A ADVISES

A ACKNOWLEDGES

A EDIFIES

A QUESTIONS
n
o
1

6**i

n 1
o

4'**0
~

o
o
zyxwvutsrqpon
o

zyxwv
o
0

n
o
o

zyxw1

o
o
i
o
0

o
n
n
~

o
1

o
o

2
~

53***3

4
n

5"'2

12***2
o
n

14
i
i
0
n

5***3

2
1

I
o
n

o
o
n
o
0

o
2
~

0
n

14***9
i

4**36***3
o
2

8'**5***1
2
0
n

7
1
o o ~ ~ i

A OISCLOSES 8"9"*0 0 0 1 0 10 8 40"'l 4"*3 I 4++ 5 4 9 *** p < 005

* * p <.01

zyxwvutsr
B REFLECTS o o n i o o n 3 o 1 i o o o o 1 1 ~ p <.05

B CONFIRMS 1 0 0 0 1 0 I S"*1 n o 4 o o n 1 o o

B INTERPRETS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

B ADVISES 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

B ACKNOWLEDGES o 2 o o o I o 6"'O 4***0 o n o n 6***1 1

B EDIFIES 4 6 9***8'*'1 1 21"'7 15 8 0 1 0 1 0 81**'2 13

B QUESTIONS I z I 1 n n 1 19***6**1o***o o o o o 2 7-1

B DISCLOSES 0 2 4***4"*1 1 8"*2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 23" 4 37***

p < . 0 0 5 ) , we propose (lapse+ B discloses+ B clearly involve adjacency pairs. Sequence (l),
discloses- B discloses) as a fully verified be- (lapse+ A questions-+ B acknowledges) less ob-
havior sequence. There are three such cases in the viously involves an adjacency pair form. Utter-
sample. The sequence is diagrammed in Figure 1. ances such as "oh," "well," or "hmm" follow-
ing a question are, we suspect, heard as the first of
Question-Answer Adjacency Pairs in Postlapse several "answers." So, if we treat sequence (1) as
Behavior Segments containing an adjacency pair, the fourth hypothesis
is confirmed. Sixty-six percent of the sequences
There are three fully verified behavior sequences contain an adjacency pair.
in the post-lapse data: (1) (lupse--t A questions+
B acknowledges); ( 2 ) (lapse+ B questions+ A
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
discloses); (3) (lapse- B discloses-+ B dis-
closes- B discloses). There are three partially
verified sequences: (4) (lapse-, B questions-+ A Audio-tape recordings of 30-minute conversa-
edifies);( 5 ) (lapse+ B quesrions-, B questions); tions between 90 pairs of strangers were analyzed
( 6 ) (lapse- A questions-+ B edifies-, A ac- for the frequency and duration of conversational
knowledges). Of the six, three ([21, [41, [61) lapses. Members of dyads whose conversations
314 zyxwvu
zyxw
zyxwvutsrqpon HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8, No. 4 Summer 1982

TABLE 6

zyxwvut
Lag-2 Transition Matrix for Postlapse Data
Ln w
Ln
Ln Ln
m m t ; x"w L n L n
z w L n L n
L n m

GAP

LAUGH

A REFLECTS

A CONFIRMS

A INTERPRETS
2

0
2

1
0

0
I

0
2

0 1

0
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
0

0
0

0
1

2
3
'
"
5

4"*1

0
4"'5**'0

5'"'O

0
1

1
0

0
1

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
2

10***1

4*+'1

2
0

0
1

A ADVISES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 1

A ACKNOWLEDGES 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 7*"4'**1 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 5**'

A EDIFIES

A QUESTIONS

A DISCLOSES

B REFLECTS

B CONFIRMS
zyxwvutsrqp
3

0
z
6'*'4
2

0
1
2

4'*'4'**l

0
1

0
0

1
1

1 0
1

5*"4

0
3
?
'
*1

15

4**'2
4

0
9

29***1

1
3

0
2

2
0

0
2

0
IO"17

0
1

0
30*"0

10

1
4

0
7

9**'

I1

1
*** p
** p
p
~ ,005
c . 01
' . 05

B INTERPRETS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

B ADVISES 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

B ACKNOWLEDGES 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 4 ' 0 1

B EDIFIES 3 6 2 5"O 2 13**14 13 9 0 2 0 2 1 65**'7 12

B OUESTIONS 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 9"'l 11'*'4***0 0 0 2 9 3 2

6 DISCLOSES
2 3 2 3 2 17"*5 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 O24"*217

contained multiple lapses did not differ signifi- Analysis of the postlapse utterances indicated the
cantly from members of dyads whose conversa- presence of six verified behavior sequences. Of
tions had fewer lapses in postconversation ratings these, four or 66.7% involved questiodanswer
of communication satisfaction. However, partici- adjacency pairs.
pants in multiple-lapse conversations did assign The results of the present research lend support
their partners significantly lower ratings of com- to the concept of implicativeness as an organizing
municative competency. principle of conversation. Our findings indicate
From the conversations of each of the 45 dyads that lapses are highly likely to be preceded by a
with multiple lapses, two of the lapses were ran- series of turns in which one of the participants uses
domly selected for analysis. Transcripts of the 10 responses which fail to advance the topic, that is,
utterances immediately prior and immediately sub- which simultaneously fail to reduce the set of ele-
sequent to each lapse were coded for response ments from the old topic (the previous turn), and
mode. Lag sequential analysis of the utterances fail to introduce new material for the potential
prior to a lapse indicated the presence of eight ver- topic. The analysis of the postlapse data indicates
ified behavior sequences. Of these, 62.5% in- that subsequent to a lapse, the most probable
volved minimal responses by one of the partners. strategy is for one of the participants to initiate an
 McLaughlin and Cody
adjacency pair by posing a question which partner
is obligated to answer. We may thus conclude that
at least to some extent lapses are occasioned by the
absence of implicativeness and remedied by its
reinstatement.
A number of questions remain unanswered.
First, why do people give a minimal response
when they might use their turn to advance the
topic? There are several possibilities. Minimal re-
sponses may be used, as Fishman (1978) has sug-
gested, to discourage partner from pursuing the
current topic. Alternatively, minimal responses
may occur because the immediately preceding ut-
terance by partner has an impoverished set of ele-
zyxwvutsr
ments from which a potential new topic can be
fashioned; for example, few nouns with concrete
referents, or null constructions such as ‘‘I don’t
have any idea about that.” Minimal response may
also occur because the participant fails to recognize
that the obligation to take one’s turn also implies
the obligation to make a turn that not only demon-
strates the occasioning aspect of the prior utterance
but also provides “instruction” for making the
subsequent turn (Jefferson, 1978). Finally, mini-
mal responses may lead to lapses when it is the
minimal responder’s intent to let partner carry the
conversational load, and partner abruptly tires of
it.
In examining the postlapse data, we are struck
by the participants’ frequent recourse to a strategy
that guarantees only two connected turns. Indeed,
zy
interactive silences did recur within a 10-utterance
span in 26 of the 90 cases. One feature that many
zyxwvu
of these initiating questions had in common was
that they called for a short answer: for example,
“What dorm do you live in?” While some partici-
pants were able to advance the topic considerably
on the basis of a short answer, others would pro-
duce only a reflection or acknowledgement on the
third turn, leaving the burden of topic development
to their partner. Our impression is that, ordinarily,
introducing a question is an effective remedy to a
lapse only when the question is open-ended.
Although we have not addressed the issue in this
report, we hope in the future to consider whether or
not the response mode profiles of dyads with mul-
tiple conversational lapses are significantly differ-
zyxwv
zy 315
ent, over the entirety of the conversation, from the
profiles of dyads less troubled by interactive si-
lences.
NOTES
Matarazzo and Weins (1967) reported the mean duration of
individual initiative time latencies as 3.30. They do not re-
port a standard deviation. Data were obtained in the context
of an interview in which interviewer response latency was
systematically manipulated. Jaffe and Feldstein (1970) re-
ported that for female dyads engaged in a half-hour interac-
tion, switching pauses averaged .664, with a mean standard
deviation of .165. Goldman-Eisler (1968) studied spontane-
ous speech under several different conditions, including
adult discussions, adolescent discussions, and psychiatric
interviews. She reported that for adult discussions, no
pauses greater than 3.0 seconds were observed: that for
adolescent discussions, 0.1% of the pauses were 3.0 seconds
or greater: that for psychiatric interviews 9.6% of the pauses
were greater than 3.0 seconds. Standard deviations were not
reported.
Stiles’ system allows the researcher to code utterances for
both grammatical form and intent, yielding a 64-category
coding scheme. In the present study, utterances were coded
only for intent.
The gap code was used so that the LAGS program would
not confuse non-criterion silences occurring within 10 tums
of a lapse with the criterion silences randomly selected for
analysis.
For both fully and partially verified sequences, we propose
only those sequences for which there were at least three
cases in the sample.
The arrows in the prelapse portion of Figure 1 point down-
ward in order to reflect the chronological sequences of be-
haviors; the reader should recall, however, that prelapse
sequences were established by lagging backwards from the
lapse.
REFERENCES
ARKOWITZ. H., LICHTENSTEIN, E., McGOVERN, K . . &
HINES. P. The behavioral assessment of social competence
in males. Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 3-13.
BALL, P. Listeners’ responses to filled pauses in relation to
tloor apportionment. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 1975, 14. 423-424.
BENOIT, P. Structural coherence production in the conversa-
tions of preschool children. Paper presented to the Speech
Communication Association, New York. November 1980.
BERGER, C.R. The acquaintance process revisited: Explora-
tions in initial interaction. Paper presented to the Speech
Coinmunication Association, New York, 1973.
BERNSTEIN, B. Social class, linguistic codes and grammati-
cal elements. Language and Speech, 1962, 5. 221-240.
BIGLAN. A , . GLASER, S.R., & DOW, M.G. Conversational
skills training for social anxiety: An evaluation of its valid-
ity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, 1980.
Cited in Dow. M.G.. Glaser. S.R. and Biglan, A. The rele-
vance of specific conversational behaviors to ratings of so-
316 zyxwvu
zyxw
zyxwvutsrqpon HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Vol. 8. No. 4 Summer 1982
zyxwvuts
cia1 skill: A review of experimental analysis. Paper pre-
sented to the Speech Communication Association, New
York, November 1980.
CAPPELLA, J.. & PLANALP, S. Talk and silence sequences
in informal conversations 111: Interspeaker influence.
Human Communication Research, 1981, 7, 117-132.
DOW, M.G., GLASER, S.R., & BIGLAN, A. The relevance
zyxwvutsrq
of specific conversational behaviors to ratings of social
zyxw
skill: A review and experimental analysis. Paper presented
to the Speech Communication Association, New York,
November 1980.
DUNCAN, S. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns
in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1972. 23, 283-292.
FISHMAN, P.M. Interaction: The work women do. Social
Problems. 1978. 25, 397-406.
GARVEY, C. The contingent query: A dependent action con-
versation. In M. Lewis & L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Interac-
tion, conversation and the development of language. New
York, 1977.
GLASGOW, R.E., & .4RKOWITZ, H. The behavioral as-
sessment of male and female social competency in dyadic
heterosexual interaction. Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 488-
498.
GOLDMAN-EISLER, F. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in
spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press, 1968.
GOTTMAN, J.M., & BAKEMAN, R . The sequential analysis
of observational data. In M.E. Lamb, S.J. Suomi, & G.R.
Stephenson (Eds.), Social interaction analysis: Meth-
odological issues. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wis-
consin Press, 1979, 185-206.
GOTTMAN, J.M., MARKMAN, H., & NOTARIUS, C. The
topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of ver-
bal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 1977. 39, 461-477.
GUETZKOW, H. Unitizing and categorizing problems in cod-
ing qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1950,
6, 47-58.
HECHT, M.L. Contextual correlates of communication satis-
faction. Paper presented to the Speech Communication As-
sociation, Minneapolis, November 1978.
JAFFE, J . . & FELDSTEIN, S . Rhythms of dialogue. New
York: Academic Press, 1970.
JEFFERSON, G. Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies
in Social Inreraction. New York: Free Press, 1972.
JEFFERSON, G., & SCHENKEIN, J. Some sequential negoti-
ations in conversation: Unexpanded and expanded versions
of projected action sequences. Sociology, 1977, 11, 87-103.
KENT, G.G.. DAVIS, J.D., & SHAPIRO, D.A. Resources
required in the construction and reconstruction of conversa-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,
36, 13-22.
LOEB, R.H. She-manners. New York: Associated Press,
1959.
MATARAZZO, J.D., & WIENS, A.N. Interviewer influence
on the duration of interviewee silence. Journal of Experi-
mental Research in Personality, 1967, 2, 56-69.
McLAUGHLIN, M.L., CODY, M.J., & ROBEY, C.S. Sex
differences in story receipt and story sequencing behaviors
in dyadic conversations. Human Communication Research,
1981, 7, 99-116.
NEWMAN, H. Perceptions of silence in conversation. City
University of New York, 1978. Dissertarion Abstracts In-
ternationa19 September 1978, 39, 3-B, 1,546.
NOFSINGER, R.E. The demand ticket: A conversational de-
vice for getting the floor. Speech Monographs, 1975, 42,
1-9.
PLANALP. S . , & TRACY. K. Not to change the topic, but. . .
a cognitive approach to the management of conversation.
Paper presented to the International Communication Asso-
ciation, Acapulco. Mexico, May 1980.
SACKETT, G.P., HOLM, R., CROWLEY, C . , & HENKINS,
A. A FORTRAN program for lag sequential analysis of con-
tingency and cyclicity in behavioral data. Behavior Re-
search Methods & Instrumentation, 1979, 1 1 , 366-378.
SACKS, H. On the analyzability of stories by children. In J.
Gumperr & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguis-
tics: The ethnography of communication. New York, 1972.
SACKS, H., SCHEGLOFF, E.A., & JEFFERSON, G. A
simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in
conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organi-
zation of conversational interaction. New York: Academic
Press, 1978, 7-55.
SCHANK. R.G. Rules and topics in conversation. Cognitive
Science, 1977, 1, 421-444.
STILES, W.B. Verbal response modes and dimensions of in-
terpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 693-703.
STILES, W.B. Manual for a taxonomy of verbal response
modes. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North
Carolina Press, 1978.
VUCINICH, S. Elements of cohesion between turns in ordinary
conversation. Semiotica, 1977, 20, 229-257.
WEIMANN, J.M. Explication and test of a model of com-
municative competence. Human Communication Research,
1977, 3, 195-213.