Download The Role of Imagined Interactions in Forensic Tournaments: A Cognitive Approach and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Theories of Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
AN ANALYSIS OF IMAGINED INTERACTIONS OF
FORENSIC PARTICIPANTS
J. Michael Gotcher and James M. Honeycutt*
Sports psychologists have found it helpful for athletes to visual- ize themselves giving flawless performances before their actual per- formance (May & Asken, 1987). It has been suggested that mental imagery can increase self-confidence. Mental imagery after a suc- cessful performance is valuable for athletes by enabling them to focus on exceptional aspects of the performance and categorize those for future performances (Orlick, 1980). If mental imagery enables an athlete to enhance or reproduce specific physical be- haviors, then mental imagery could be beneficial for forensic com- petitors enabling them to produce or reproduce successful communication behaviors. Since forensics is a competitive activity that rewards the most appropriate communication behavior, then mental imagery could provide competitors with examples of ideal communicative strate- gies to be used in actual competition. Traditionally, forensic coaches encourage mental imagery and appropriate communica- tion behavior by directing their students to concentrate on the up- coming round, get into character, think positively, have a winning attitude, and to evaluate one's last performance in order to im- prove future performances. Underlying these directives is the premise that forensic participants can cognitively evaluate the round and follow through with the most appropriate rhetorical strategy. However, this underlying premise has not been tested. No re- searcher has examined how forensic competitors cognitively evalu- ate their performances. This research will examine the mental aspects of forensic competition. The purpose of this research is:
- to determine if competitors utilize mental imagery in preparing and evaluating their competitive performances, 2) to determine what aspects of mental imagery enhance performance, and 3) to provide practical implications for forensic coaches in the use of mental imagery. 'The National Forensic Journal, VII (Spring, 1989), pp. 1-20. J. MICHAEL GOTCHER is a Doctoral Candidate and Debate Coach in Speech Communication at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; JAMES M. HONEYCUTT is Assistant Professor of Speech Commu- nication at Louisiana State University and Director of the Center for Imag- ined Interaction Research, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. 1
2 National Forensic Journal Imagined Interactions Mental imagery processes have been studied in terms of "imagined interactions" (Honeycutt, Zagacki, & Edwards, 1989). These researchers define imagined interactions as a process of cog- nition whereby individuals imagine themselves in an interaction with others. "Imagined interactions are an attempt to simulate real-life conversation with significant others" (Honeycutt, et al., 1989, p. 169). During imagined interactions, individuals can actu- ally work through representations of communication events and prepare responses based on those contingencies. Mead (1934) noted that the mental activity of determining who to respond to in a social situation is critical to the development of the self-concept. According to Honeycutt and his associates (1989), during imag- ined interactions, individuals may consciously take the role of oth- ers, imagining how they might respond to one messages within particular situations, and test the consequences of communication strategies. For example, Honeycutt (1988) provides an account of a 21-year-old woman who reported an imagined interaction with her husband in their home. She imagines discussing his negative feelings toward her. The imagined interaction served to fulfill ca- tharsis and rehearsal functions. The woman felt better having re- hearsed the message strategy. Imagined interactions are grounded in symbolic interactionism and Greene's (1984) action-assembly theory. Mead (1934) argues how individuals develop representations of self through imaginary conversations and cited an individual's ability to monitor social ac- tion as a distinguishing mark of human intelligence. This type of mental activity, explain Manis and Meltzer (1978), "is a peculiar type of activity that goes on in the experience of the person. The activity is that of the person responding to himself, of indicating things to himself" (p. 21). What is important about this type of mental activity is that (1) one may consciously take the role of others, imagining how they might respond to one's messages within particular situations, and thus (2) one can test and imagine the consequences of alternative messages prior to communication. Honeycutt and his associates (1989) discuss how imagined in- teractions may be used as a type of simulation in preparing for expected communicative encounters. Kahneman and Tversky (1982) list five judgmental tasks in which simulation is liable to be used for problem solving: predicting a future event; assessing the probability of a specific event; assessing conditional probabilities; counterfactual assessments; and assessments of causality. These
4 National Forensic Journal Second, in the tournament environment, message selection is in a constant process of evaluation and reevaluation. For example, debaters are required to choose from a repertoire of potential ar- guments to counter opposing positions. They are required to en- gage in cross examination, deal with case areas that vary, and answer arguments that reflect the idiosyncrasies of the competi- tion. As a result, debaters are required to select an argumentative strategy that they think will defend their positions and be well re- ceived by the judges. Message evaluation is also critical for individual event partici- pants. For example, in "After Dinner Speaking" competition, competitors are encouraged to "work" the audience. They are often rewarded for identifying and incorporating the peculiarities of the audience in their speech. In impromptu speaking, competi- tors are rewarded for generating fresh and intriguing insights on a quotation in less than three minutes. In platform speaking events, speakers are expected to appear spontaneous even though they may have previously delivered the same speech a number of times. Participants also must consider the communicative environ- ment of the tournament. This includes analyzing such variables as the acoustics of the room, audience size, position of the judge, and room furnishing. Honeycutt and his associates (in press) discuss how imagined interactions not only use verbal imagery but visual images. Some individuals imagine the scene of the encounter and are well aware of the surroundings in which the interaction takes place. Using both visual and verbal imagery, imagined interactions can enable forensic participants to mentally rehearse messages and prepare for possible exigencies. Through the rehearsal function of imagined interactions, tension may be released as the imagineer is reducing uncertainty for the anticipated round. Imagined interaction also may serve a function of increasing self-understanding (Zagacki et al., 1988) and occur after the round is over. The participant can go back and replay what hap- pened while making adjustments for future rounds. The imagineer can "rewrite" the imagined interaction and provide information for the self to use during real interaction (Edwards et al., 1988). This investigation assessed the relationship between imagined interac- tion activity for individuals engaging in actual tournament competi- tion in order to determine what types of cognitive processes are in operation in this task situation.
SPRING 1989 5
Hypotheses and Research Questions Existing literature made it possible to generate some theoreti- cally relevant hypotheses in the tournament setting. In addition, research questions were posed where no directional hypotheses could be posited. The first question deals with the principle type of competition—individual events or debate. Debate and individual events require a different orientation for the participants. Debate requires more of an evidence orientation and argumentative ap- proach while individual events require more of an audience-cen- tered model of adaptation and persuasion (Wilson, 1978). Thus, we ask: RQ1: Do debaters and individual events competitors differ in the function of their imagined interactions? The research by Edwards et al. (1988) proposed that individu- als tend to have imagined interactions with the same individual. In the arena of forensics, the most discussed and contemplated indi- viduals are the judge and opponent. Thus we ask: RQ2: Who are the imagined interactions within forensic settings? Imagined interactions involve encounters with a real person, the interactions provide a give-and-take dialogical exchange of ideas. Earlier research has found that the self tends to talk more in the imagined interaction compared to the other as well as initiating the conversation. Thus, the imagined interactions affords powers of conversation control (Edwards et al., 1988). Given the nature of the forensic setting in which individuals are rewarded for appro- priate messages, they should plan and envision message strategies. Thus we posit: H1: The self will talk more in the imagined interaction than the dialogue partner. As previously indicated, mental imagery is used in sports to focus on successful performances. Therefore, forensic participants may use imagined interactions to identify strategies that lead to victorious outcomes. It is also possible that competitors may use imagined interactions to prepare for defeat in order to prepare and bolster oneself for expected "bad" news. Subsequently, we ask: RQ3: Do forensic competitors experience more success or defeat in their imagined interactions? The rehearsal function, which indicates proactive imagined in- teractions, imagined interactions implies that a person selects ap- propriate messages in order to achieve a desired outcome. Thus,
SPRING 1989
mation between interactants. For forensic competitors, imagined interactions should perform the procedural function of identifying the most appropriate response in a specific situation. Thus, the question arises concerning the discrepancy between the imagined and real interaction. One of the general features identified in the imagined interac- tion construct is concerned with the discrepancy between imagined and real interaction (Edwards et al., 1988; Zagacki et al., 1988). In addition, Edwards and her associates (1988) argue that there is a slight, peripheral relationship with having an imagined interaction before important encounters and having discrepant imagined inter- actions. Given the peripheral relationship discussed in earlier imag- ined interaction studies, the following research question was posed instead of making a directional hypothesis. RQ5: What is the relationship between imagined interac- tion discrepancy and the other imagined interaction features (activity, success, proactivity) in the tournament setting? METHOD Subjects The data was collected at three college tournaments. Each tournament offered competition in both debate and individual events. The colleges and universities represented at the tourna- ments provided a geographic mix of the United States, ranging from California to Florida and from Texas to Minnesota. The sam- ple population consisted of 73 individuals in which 63% were male and 37% were female. In addition, 60% of the respondents pri- marily competed in debate, 26% in individual events, and 10% competed in both debate and individual events. In considering the breakdown for forensics experience, 38% had 1 to 2 years of expe- riences, 27% had 3 to 4 years of forensics experience, and 35% had 5 or more year of forensics experience (high school experi- ence was included). Measuring Imagined Interactions Honeycutt and his associates (in press) discuss how investiga- tors of imagined interactions face the same methodological prob- lems facing cognitive researchers in general in the reliance on self- reports. Caughey (1984) has acknowledged this difficulty, noting that the only way to gather data about imagined interactions specifically is through introspection. Ericsson and Simon (1980) address the issue of using self-reports as data and offer some guidelines when retrospective verbalization is made. They indicate
8 National Forensic Journal that providing contextual information and prompts to respondents can aid recall from long-term memory. The survey instrument that has been used to measure imagined interaction activity is designed to contextualize respondents through prompting them to think about the concept of imagined interactions. Ericsson and Simon (1980) argue that a portion of the contents of short-term memory are fixated in long-term memory and this portion can, at later points in time, be retrieved from long-term memory. Pelose (in press) has indicated how one can find similar methods of intro- spective self-report used in communication and "daydreaming" re- search. For example, Singer (1978) has reviewed questionnaire studies of "daydreaming" which may consist of some imagined in- teraction episodes and indicates that questionnaires and interviews have proven to be helpful in examining special ways in which day- dreaming is reflected in daily life. Instrumentation The investigation utilized a slightly revised version of the SII developed by Edwards and her associates (1988). The SII is a multidimensional instrument containing eight factor scales reflect- ing various features of imagined interactions. Subjects respond to 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1) "very strong disagree- ment" to 7) "very strong agreement" in response to items measur- ing general characteristics and features of imagined interactions. Items reflecting five dimensions of imagined interaction features were chosen for analysis. The five imagined interaction indices were activity, discrepancy, retroactivity, proactivity, and success. These dimensions were chosen due to the kinds of research ques- tions posed in this study. The revised version reduced the number of questionnaire items from 67 to 24. The questions were also re- worded to reflect the terminology shared by forensics participants. Activity is a four-item index that represents the frequency or how often individuals report having imagined interactions (e.g., "I have imagined interactions all the time."). The discrepancy index contains seven items measuring how discrepant an imagined inter- action is from a real one (e.g., "In my real conversations, I am very different than in my imagined ones."). Retroactivity is a three-item dimension in which imagined interactions occur after an important encounter has taken place (e.g., "After important meet- ings, I frequently imagine them."). Proactivity also is a three-item index and reflects those imagined interactions occurring before im- portant meetings (e.g., "Before important meetings, I frequently imagine them.") Finally, success in the imagined interaction was a
10 National Forensic Journal (44% accuracy).^1 Part of this differential accuracy could be due to the mixing of debate with purely individual events for the "individ- ual events" group. Univariate contrasts also revealed that debaters had more imagined interactions than individual events competi- tors. Table 2 presents the univariate contrasts for each index. Table 1 Stepwise Discriminating Imagined Interaction Dimensions Step II Dimension Wilks’ Lambda Rao’s V Change in Rao’s V p Function Coefficient 1 Activity .94 4.46 4.46 .034 1. 2 Proactivity .84 12.26 7.80 .005 -1. Group Centroids: Individual Events = -.56 Debaters =. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Results of Individual Contrasts For Imagined Interactions (II)Characteristics Imagined Interaction Characteristics* M S.D. t** Activity Dimension: Debate Group 17.37 5. Individual Events Group 14.60 5. -2.11** Proactivity Dimension: Debate Group 17.05 5. Individual Events Group 16.60 4. -. I.I. with the Judge After the Round 3.2 1. Recurrent judge 3.7 1. 2.00** Dominates the Interaction Self 5.0 1. Other 3.2 1. 6.93*** Success in I.I. 5.5 1. Defeat in I.I. 4.3 1. 6.97*** Retroactivity 11.6 3. Proactivity 10.9 3. 3.51*** *Scale Range: Activity (4-28), Proactivity, Retroactivity (3-21), I.I. with Judge, Dominance, Success, Defeat (1-7)
SPRING 1989 11
RQ2 asked if the judge or opponent was the dialogue partner in the imagined interactions. Table 3 presents the results of coding of responses to an open-ended question asking who the imagined interactions in tournament competition were with. There was a significant difference between the number of respondents reporting opponents as opposed to other individuals. Respondents indicated that the principal other in their imagined interactions were mostly opponents as opposed to judges, (Chi Square (4) = 10.3, p =. 03). However, when the judge (M = 3.2) was the other in the imagined interaction, the respondents reported that they had imagined inter- actions with a recurrent judge (M = 3.7, t = 2.00, p = .05, testwise alpha = .05, experimentwise alpha = .008). Table 3 Dialogue Partners in the Imagined Interactions Partner Partner Opponent 17 Teammate 11 Coach 10 Judge 5 Missing Data* 25 Total 73 Chi Square (4) = 10.3, p<. 'These individuals failed to indicate who their dialogue partners were. H1 posited that the self would talk more in the imagined inter- action than the dialogue partner. This hypothesis was supported. Individual contrasts revealed that the self (M = 5.0) dominated the interaction compared to the other (M = 3.2, t = 6.93, p = .001). RQ3 asked if individuals experienced more success or defeat in their imagined interactions. Respondents experienced sig- nificantly more success (M = 5.5) than defeat (M = 4.3, t = 6.97, p = support indicating that the more individuals were successful in their imagined interactions, the more proactive imagined interac- tions they had. Table 4 reveals the positive correlation (r = imag- ined interactions indicating that respondents who experienced imagined interactions before the round tended to report more suc- cess in their imagined events. On the other hand, retroactivity did not significantly correlate with success. It is also noted that proac- tivity was strongly related to the frequency of having imagined in- teractions.
SPRING 1989 13
and critic. On the other hand, individual events participants can- not assume as active a role in the communication process. Individ- ual events function in such a way that participants use the same speech and literary cutting throughout an entire forensics season. Therefore, the nature of the event varies the frequency of the imagined interactions. Debate requires participants constantly to evaluate and reevaluate possible message alternatives in light of the constraints of the situation, thus more frequent imagined interac- tions are necessary. Since individual events participants are not in a position to vary their prepared speeches significantly, literary cut- tings, etc., then fewer imagined interactions are experienced. Another function significantly linked to the nature of the event was the timing of the imagined interactions (before or after the actual event). Since debate requires the interactants to pursue an active role that shapes the communication encounter, debaters tend to have more imagined interactions before the actual round of competition. For debaters, it appears that imagined interactions served more of a rehearsal process for testing and evaluating po- tential messages. In individual events, the participants are actors in the communication process fulfilling prescribed roles rather than shaping the communication encounter. For individual events par- ticipants, imagined interactions tended to function as post hoc analysis of the given performance. These results suggest that if the locus of control in the commu- nication situation is in the possession of the interactant, as in de- bate, then imagined interactions are more frequent and serve a rehearsal function. However, if the locus of control for significantly shaping the interaction process is outside the individual, as in indi- vidual events, fewer imagined interactions are experienced; when they are experienced, they are retroactive. A second major finding concerns discrepancy and imagined interactions. As the frequency of imagined interactions increased, the discrepancy between imagined and real interactions decreased. Similarly, as the participants reported more past success in foren- sics, discrepancy also decreased. Consequently, as respondents in- creased their awareness of the forensic activity, through imagined interactions or actual competition, their imagined interactions be- gin to more closely mirror reality. These results suggest that imag- ined interactions can compensate for lack of experience in the forensic activity. In the forensic activity, past success may act as a guide for future performances. Participants attempt to repeat behaviors that were previously rewarded. Imagined interactions allow participants
14 National Forensic Journal to rehearse behaviors and then implement the behaviors in subse- quent rounds. The rehearsal function enables the inexperienced competitor to compensate for lack of experience by engaging in imagined interactions. Imagined interactions can act as a substitute for experience by allowing the individual to participate mentally in the forensic activity. A third insight of interest relates to proactivity and the imag- ined success construct. When an individual experienced the imag- ined interaction before the actual encounter, they tended to experience more success in the imagined interaction. This may correspond with Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968) self-fulfilling prophecy. Before the actual encounter, participants imagined the best possible outcome. They had a tendency to view themselves in a favorable light. This result in conjunction with the finding con- cerning discrepancy suggests that proactive imagined interactions assist the individual in psychologically preparing for actual compe- tition. Interestingly, imagined success did not significantly correlate with retroactivity. This would suggest that in the retroactive process of imagined interactions, the individual tends to focus on the short- comings of the actual performance before knowing how he/she was evaluated by the judge resulting in a two-fold effect on the individ- ual. First, by focusing on the inadequacies of the actual encounter, individuals could be bolstering themselves for anticipated news of low ratings from a judge. If the individual can prepare for antici- pated disappointment through retroactivity, then the actual news resulting in disappointment is softened and the ego remains intact. In addition to protecting the ego, retroactive imagined interac- tions can play an educational role for the participant. Through retroactivity, the individual can identify the inadequacies of the previous performance and adjust future performances to compen- sate. Not only can imagined interactions better prepare (proactive) the individual for the actual encounter but they can also provide psychological support after-the-fact (retroactive). Future imagined interactions research needs to explore the precise functions of proactivity and retroactivity in a variety of communication situ- ations. Unfortunately, this research failed to statistically establish the link between past success in competition and success in imagined interactions. The possible reason for this failure was the inade- quacy of the rating scale used to determine past success. Partici- pants were asked to provide a self-report of their past success in competitions by selecting from three possible choices: extremely
16 National Forensic Journal between these thoughts an what the individual should be doing in the encounter. "The more intense and constant the internal mono- logue, the lower a person's ability to pick up cues from the envi- ronment and respond sensibly to them" (Howell, 1986; p. 114). In contrast, imagined interactions are internal dialogue. In- stead of merely responding to our conjured thoughts, we may re- spond to imagined remarks by the other. For example, if a debater is constantly losing a particular issue, then the debater could imag- ine discussing the details of the issue with a critic. The imagined discussion could better enable the debater to revise the argument to meet the needs of the judge. In individual events, contestants that are consistently informed on ballots that their selections are not indicative of their talent could use imagined interactions to address the issue and possibly revise their introductions in order to address the judging complaints. However, if contestants merely re- hearse their events without cognitively evaluating the effects of the performance on the audience, the cognitive imagery will not fulfill its potential. In order for imagined interactions to better fulfill their poten- tial, coaches need to encourage competitors to construct imagined interactions with critics. The results of this study indicate that imagined interactions most often occur with other competitors; however, the critic is the decision-maker in the round and there- fore should be the significant other in the imagined interaction. Thomas (1981) noted that the round is decided in the mind of the critic and not the perceptions of the competitors. Thus, it might be wise for a contestant to construct imagined interactions with critics. Imagined interactions with critics could be constructed from judges' ballots, judging philosophies, actual judge interactions, and discussions with other contestants concerning various judges. From the collected information, contestants could generate imagined in- teractions with critics which would enable contestants to be better prepared to reproduce the behaviors that correspond to the expec- tations of the various judges. Obviously, this coaching strategy is most beneficial with reoccurring critics. However, such interactions could also aid the participant in constructing a foundation of judg- ing expectations based on the collected data. Second, coaches should encourage competitors to proactively imagine successful communication behavior. Competitors, like ath- letes, should mentally rehearse the behavior that is to be repro- duced in competition. For example, debaters could rehearse cross examination questions and answers, first affirmative responses, case arguments, off-case positions, etc. Individual events partici-
SPRING 1989 17
pants could focus attention on maintaining concentration in the upcoming rounds. Whatever problems that competitors may have in competition could be minimized through positive mental im- agery. Third, coaches could utilize imagined interactions by having competitors cognitively playback the round and attempt to pinpoint exceptional aspects of their performance while trying to reproduce those aspects in future rounds. Through retroactivity, competitors could identify why they were successful and focus on repeating the successful behavior. Finally, imagined interactions could be useful in supplementing actual practice sessions. The activity dimensions of imagined inter- actions indicates that the more frequently imagined interactions are experienced, the more accurately they mirror reality as well as corresponding to imagined success. In addition, the data indicates that imagined interactions can compensate for lack of experience and mentally prepare the participant for the demands of competi- tion. Since a significant portion of forensics is in the mind, then it may be wise for coaches to encourage participants to actively imag- ine the rounds. If control and success in the actual rounds can be linked to concentration and dedication to the task at hand, then imagined interactions may facilitate successful competition. NOTES Classification accuracy in discriminant analysis is meaningful only to the extent that the prior probability of classification is con- sidered. Based on sample size, the prior probability of classifica- tion was .37 for individual events and .63 for debate activities. Thus, the percentage of cases correctly classified was beyond chance accuracy for both groups.
SPRING 1989 19 Wilson, J. L. (1978). Competitiveness of intercollegiate debaters: A mul- tivariate analysis. Journal of the American Forensics Associaition, 15, 148-155. Zagacki, K. S., Edwards, R., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Imagined interactions, social cognition and intrapersonal communication. Paper pre- sented on the Top Two Panel in the Intrapersonal Division at the annual Speech Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana (November).
PREDICTING RANKINGS AT INDIVIDUAL
EVENTS TOURNAMENTS: DO THE OUTCOMES
JUSTIFY CURRENT PRACTICES?
Robert S. Littlefield* Students competing in forensic activities have long been self- proclaimed masters in the "art of prediction." These students have predicted how they would finish in a round of competition based upon their speaking order or perceived favorable or unfavorable judge bias towards them based upon previous experiences and knowledge of a judge. Despite the mystery surrounding these pre- dictions by students during any given forensic tournament, and the unwillingness of most coaches to accept the bases for these thoughts, that which is predicted can often become what some call a "self-fulfilling prophecy." This ability to predict the rankings of judges in individual events has not received attention from forensic scholars. However, Murphy and Hensley (1966) studied the ability of debaters to pre- dict whether they won or lost a debate and whether they could evaluate the skill of an opposing debater. They concluded that debaters could not predict their own abilities or those abilities of their opponents to win rounds. The effect of the judge who provides the unexpected ranking (commonly referred to as "the squirrel judge") has been the basis of a number of studies. Pratt and Littlefield (1986) examined judges' preferences as a tournament tabulation procedure. They determined that, in general, if a judge were accepted to critique rounds of competition in individual events by a tournament direc- tor, the rankings and ratings provided by that judge should be con- sidered as accurate and appropriate as any other judge accepted to critique rounds at a given tournament. They suggested that the term "squirrel" was used inappropriately to identify a judge of per- ceived "lower quality" because his or her ranks and ratings dif- fered from those of the other judges in a round. In an effort to further clarify attitudes toward judges, Hanson (1987) identified what traits student contestants associated with a "good" judge, and those associated with a "bad" judge. His survey found that stu- dents identified "good" judges as providing helpful comments, being attentive, lacking bias, providing feedback, and contributing *The National Forensic Journal, VII (Spring, 1989), pp. 21-28. ROBERT S. LITTLEFIELD is Assistant Professor and Department Chair of Speech Communication at North Dakota State University in Fargo, ND 58105. 21
