9.2.1: Confirming and Disconfirming Responses- Well, It Depends!

It is important to note that many behaviors may be interpreted differently—as disconfirming at one end of the continuum or as confirming at the other end of the continuum. Sometimes cultural norms play a role in the confirmation–disconfirmation continuum. There are many ways to say “no” without using the word “no” in some cultures. For example, a master’s thesis published in November 2020 investigated “50 ways to say ‘No’ in Japanese: A study in refusals among Japanese people” (Maciejewski, 2020). As the author stated in the abstract of his thesis: “indirectness as a polite refusal strategy in Japanese can often lead to misunderstandings since indirectness is not always regarded as polite in other languages.” Such indirectness could be interpreted as an ambiguous or irrelevant disconfirming response on the part of someone outside of Japanese culture.

You might be familiar with a response that sometimes comes up in interpersonal interactions known as a tangential response. This occurs when the speaker briefly acknowledges a person’s contribution to a conversation, but then immediately changes the direction of the discussion. Why is this a potentially a disconfirming response? After all, the person is acknowledged. The conversation partner may feel disconfirmed because the gist of what they said was not addressed in any way. The speaker changed the topic and basically ignored the individual’s contribution. The speaker’s comment was irrelevant to the topic that had been brought up by the conversation partner. In our Communication classroom discussions, we have sometimes used a tangential type of response in facilitating classroom discussions. We use a tangential response because we want to acknowledge a student’s question or comment, but we may need to move the discussion on because of time. We will typically affirm a student’s question or comment by thanking them by name and telling them that we appreciated their contribution, but that we must move on to the next topic due to time. We do our best to make sure that a student is heard and acknowledged even if we must move the discussion along. (By the way, our Interpersonal Communication students usually smile and acknowledge my affirming tangential”response after we have covered the chapter on communication climate!) Our students understand that we use tangential responses as a way to keep the class discussion going.

So, it is important to note that different communication behaviors may have more than one intended message and, in turn, have more than one possible interpretation. The continuum shown in Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\) is a visual representation of how we can slide back and forth from disconfirming responses to confirming responses in our interpretation of messages. Confirming and disconfirming messages are not “absolute.” They can vary in degree of positivity and negativity, moving from invalidating and denying to acknowledging and validating.

A person might perceive a response by a conversation partner as either disconfirming or confirming. The interpretation may depend on several factors, including culture, context, status, and relationship. It is important to be somewhat flexible in interpreting what a person might mean because there could be some differences in communication style and strategies.

Here are some examples of communication behaviors that could be regarded as disconfirming at times, but they could also be seen as confirming in other communication interactions. As stated earlier, “Well, it just depends!”

• One conversation partner gives no overt response to the other. That person is not acknowledged verbally or nonverbally.
  • Disconfirming interpretations of this behavior might be interpreted by the receiver as:
    • “I feel totally ignored.”
    • “I am a ‘nonentity.’”
    • “I am not worth recognizing.”
    • “I do not even warrant a negative response.”
  • On the other hand, that same behavior could have a confirming interpretation attached to it:
    • “What I said or did was best left without acknowledgement.”
    • “Maybe this was a ‘face-saving’ strategy on the part of my conversation partner(s).”
• A conversation partner jumps right into what the other partner is saying.
  • The interrupted partner might view this behavior as a way to silence their voice and viewpoint, a disconfirming type of communication.
    • “What I have to say is insignificant.”
    • “My conversation partner’s ideas are more important than mine.”
    • “I am not worth listening to.”
    • “My conversation partner jumps right into what I am saying to take “center stage” and all of the attention and dismiss my contributions.”
  • That same “interrupting behavior” could also be interpreted in a confirming way.
    • “Wow, we are both on the same page! We are thinking alike!”
    • “My conversation partner is in sync with what I have to say and how I am saying it.”
    • “I have piqued the interest and enthusiasm of my conversation partner so much that they want to jump into the conversation.”
• One conversation partner gives the other mixed verbal and nonverbal signals or is ambiguous in their message to them.
  • When meanings are vague or when the verbal and nonverbal cues contradict each other, disconfirming interpretations might include:
    • “My conversation partner is lying to me. They say one thing verbally but another thing nonverbally.”
    • “My conversation partner is not being transparent or truthful with me.”
    • “My conversation partner is purposely trying to confuse me so I lose my focus.”
  • Sometimes this same vague or ambiguous message could be seen as affirming behavior, such as:
    • “I know that my conversation partner needs time to think about what is being said.”
    • “My conversation partner needs time to figure out what their viewpoint or answer is.”
    • “My conversation partner may be engaging in some face-saving behavior at the moment.”
    • “I know that the answer is really ‘no’ even though that is not what my conversation partner is saying with their words. They are trying to lighten the ‘no’ by using the word ‘maybe’ or the phrase ‘We’ll see.’”
• One conversation partner changes the topic.
  • This last example can leave a person feeling disconfirmed. Possible interpretations may include:
    • “I feel totally ignored.”
    • “I am a ‘nonentity.’”
    • “I am not worth recognizing.”
    • “I do not even warrant a negative response.”
  • Yet there could be other ways to interpret this communicative behavior that actually can be seen as confirming.
    • “What I said or did was best left without acknowledgement.”
    • “Maybe this was a ‘face-saving’ strategy on the part of my conversation partners.”

What does all of this mean? It suggests that there may be different ways to perceive and interpret communication that may leave one conversation partner thinking that they are being disconfirmed while another might see that same behavior as a positive, supportive behavior. Culture is a key factor in determining these differing perceptions of the same verbal and nonverbal cues. The concepts of high-context communication and low-context communication play a critical role here. Having a clear understanding of context can help you become a more effective communicator by lowering the chances of miscommunication and misunderstandings.

Enhancing your Knowledge

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) 1 in 4 adults in the United States experience some type of disability. In the past, people with disabilities were segregated into different classrooms and separate schools. We’ve come a long way from that to mainstream students with disabilities into the general education classrooms. As a result, we’re teaching children from a young age to be inclusive and accept people of all abilities. Even still, people sometimes unintentionally use words and phrases that are insensitive and do not promote dignity, respect, or understanding for folks with disabilities. Unintentional or not, it sends disconfirming messages of disrespect all the same.

Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): CDC Recommendations for “People-First" Language

Tips	Use	Do not Use
Emphasize abilities, not limitations	Person who uses a wheelchair Person who uses a device to speak	Confined or restricted to a wheelchair, wheelchair-bound Can't talk, mute
Do not use language that suggests the lack of something	Person with a disability Person of short stature Person with cerebral palsy Person with epilepsy or seizure disorder Person with multiple sclerosis	Disabled, handicapped Midget Cerebral palsy victim Epileptic Afflicted by multiple sclerosis
Emphasize the need for accessibility, not the disability	Accessible parking or bathroom	Handicapped parking or bathroom
Do not use offensive language	Person with a physical disability Person with an intellectual, cognitive, developmental disability Person with an emotional or behavioral disability, a mental health impairment, or a psychiatric disability	Crippled, lame, deformed, invalid, spastic Slow, simple, moronic, defective, afflicted, special person Insane, crazy, psycho, maniac, nuts
Avoid language that implies negative stereotypes	Person without a disability	Normal person, healthy person
Do not portray people with disabilities as inspirational only because of their disability	Person who is successful, productive	Has overcome their disability, is courageous

Discussion Questions/ Journal Prompts

1. Drawing on your past experiences, what have you learned from working with people of all abilities, whether in the classroom, workplace, or another context?
2. Disabilities are not always “visible.” One of our authors shares a personal example: "My mom was a cancer patient who was weakened by her chemo treatment. As a result, she was able to get a disabled parking placard. Upon first glance, some people thought she was cheating the system and would say unkind things to her." What can we do to create a safe space/confirming climate in situations where we are not aware or privy to this information?
3. Describe a situation where you had unintentionally created a disconfirming situation involving a person who has a disability. Reflect on your verbal and nonverbal messages and discuss what you think went wrong.

---