CHAPTER 34
COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY
Outline
I. Introduction.
A. Howard Giles built communication accommodation theory (CAT) as an answer to
questions regarding intent and perception of changing speech patterns, cultural
group membership, and social consequences.
B. Giles refers to his speech adjustments as accommodation, or changing
communication behavior in a way that reduces social distance.
C. In contrast, failing to alter one’s style (or any other communication adjustment that
maintains or increases social distance) is nonaccommodation.
II. How we accommodate (or how we don’t)
A. Giles contrasts convergence and divergence, two strategic forms of communication
used to interact with diverse others.
B. Convergence
2. Most of the time, we do it because we want to accommodate the other person.
4. Discourse management, another way of adapting, is the sensitive selection of
topics to discuss.
C. Divergence
1. Divergence is a communication strategy of accentuating the differences
between yourself and another.
3. Divergence may include counteraccommodation—direct, intentional, and even
hostile ways of maximizing the differences between speakers.
4. The elderly often increase social distance through the process of self–
5. Giles and his colleagues describe two other strategies similar to divergence that
are a bit more subtle, but function as nonaccommodation.
a. Maintenance is the strategy of persisting in your original communication style
regardless of the communication behavior of the other.
b. The other strategy that’s similar to divergence is overaccommodation, which
may be well-intended, but has the effect of making the recipient feel worse.
III. Different motivations for convergence and divergence.
A. CAT theorists have always maintained that desire for approval was the main
motivation for convergence
B. But this doesn’t account for divergence, nor for when speakers act as
representatives of a group.
C. Social identity theory
1. When communicators are aware of their group differences, that’s intergroup
3. Communication may be used to reinforce and defend ties to reference groups.
4. When groups are salient at the start of an interaction with someone different,
6. If communicators feel the need for distinctiveness, then divergence is often the
result.
7. They hold out the possibility that a person could seek approval and
distinctiveness within the same conversation when personal and social
identities are both salient.
D. Initial orientation
2. Five factors impact the perception of a conversation as an intergroup encounter.
a. Collective cultural context.
2). The I-centered focus of individualistic cultures valorizes the individual
actor—definitely oriented toward individual identity.
b. If previous interactions were uncomfortable, competitive, or hostile, both
interactants will tend to ascribe that outcome to the other person’s social
identity.
c. The more specific and negative stereotypes people have of an out-group, the
more likely they are to think of the other in terms of social identity and then
resort to divergent communication.
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
E. No single factor determines a person’s initial orientation, yet if all five factors line up
in the direction of social identity, they make it almost certain that a communicator
will approach it as an intergroup encounter.
IV. Recipient evaluation of convergence and divergence.
A. People converge when they want social approval and diverge when they want to
emphasize their distinctiveness.
B. Giles and his colleagues still believe that listeners regard convergence as positive
and divergence as negative.
C. Convergent speakers are evaluated as more competent, attractive, warm, and
cooperative compared to divergent communicators who are seen as insulting,
impolite, and hostile.
D. What is ultimately important is how the communicator is perceived.
1. Objective versus subjective accommodation.
2. Attribution theory.
a. Heider and Kelley suggest that we attribute an internal disposition to the
behavior we see another enact.
b. Our default assumption is that people who do things like that are like that.
E. The interpersonal tension created by divergence or maintenance can certainly block
the formation of intergroup or intercultural relationships and understanding.
F. But the upside for the communicator is the reaffirmed social identity and solidarity
that comes from enacting a divergent strategy.
V. Applying CAT to police officer-citizen interaction.
A. CAT can be applied to any intercultural or intergroup situation where the differences
between people are apparent and significant.
B. Giles has employed CAT to analyze routine traffic stops for issues of accommodation
and race.
VII. Critique: Enormous scope at the cost of clarity.
A. CAT not only describes communication behavior, it explains why it happens.
B. The theory has consistently predicted what will happen in specific situations.
C. CAT is an extraordinarily complex theory presented in multiple versions that are
sometimes offered simultaneously.
D. The structure and underlying terminology are not always represented consistently
with even the meaning of “accommodation” slippery.
E. The complexity problem spills over into the possibility of being able to demonstrate
that the theory is false.
F. Tests of the theory have admirably used a mix of qualitative and quantitative
methods.
G. The theory provides practical insight into many situations where people from
different groups or cultures come into contact.
Key Names and Terms
Howard Giles
Welsh social psychologist, now a professor of communication at the University of
California, Santa Barbara, who champions communication accommodation.
Accommodation
Adjustments to communication that decrease social distance
Nonaccommodation
Counteraccommodation
Direct, intentional, and even hostile ways of maximizing social distance.
Self-handicapping
For the elderly, a face-saving strategy that invokes age as a reason for not performing
well.
Maintenance
Persisting in your original communication style regardless of the communication
behavior of the other; similar to divergence.
Overaccommodation
Demeaning or patronizing talk; excessive concern paid to vocal clarity or amplitude,
message simplification, or repetition; similar to divergence.
Intergroup contact
When communicators are aware of group affiliations that distinguish them.
Social identity
Attribution
The perceptual process by which we observe what people do and then try to figure out
their intent or disposition.
Principal Changes
This chapter has been edited for clarity and readability and, most importantly, to
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• Why is convergence usually met with praise whereas divergence is criticized?
• When does accommodating go too far and becoming annoying (“he’s trying too hard”)
to those you were trying to be like?
• Can accommodating become contagious when one person starts, the other person
notices, and also begins to accommodate?
• When is accommodation intentional, and when is it not?
• Despite the theory’s prediction, when have you enjoyed another person’s
nonaccommodation?
Suggestions for Discussion
What is meant by “intercultural”?
If Giles is your class’ first foray into the theories of culture and communication, you
might want to spend a few minutes discussing various ways to define “intercultural.” Across
the three theories in this section of the book (this one, Ting-Toomey, and Orbe), you will see
that the theorists lay out different parameters of “otherness.” Giles is fairly broad by
considering social distance and group affiliation as demarcations. Ting-Toomey (ch. 35) will
take a more classically intercultural perspective, favoring the differences between
individualistic and collectivistic cultures and conducting much of her research on the
difference between geographically-oriented ethnic groups (e.g., United States vs. Japan). The
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
management theory (ch. 12) each say that culture is part of our interpretation processes.
Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory (ch. 18), Geertz & Pacanowsky’s cultural approach to
organizations (ch. 19), Deetz’s critical theory of communication in organizations (ch. 20), and
McPhee’s CCO (ch. 21) take culture in several different directions as they discuss the
cultivation and impact of culture within small groups and organizations. Both semiotics (ch.
26) and cultural studies (ch. 27) examine the mythic connotations of signs based on culture.
As noted below, CAT connects to a multitude of other theories; you might also want to note
how this demonstrates the pervasiveness of culture when trying to understand human
communication.
Tied to other theories
Giles exhibits a “continual tie–in” with other communication theories and research
traditions, a tie-in that reflects a belief that intercultural communication is an extension of
interpersonal communication. Notice, for example, the similarities between CAT and Pearce
and Cronen’s coordinated management of meaning (ch. 6). In CMM, the way people
communicate is often more important than what they say, an idea likewise reflected in Giles’
assessment that the perception of accommodation (or lack of it) may be more important than
The expectation of accommodation
At its best, accommodation might be so fluid a process such that it is occurs virtually
undetected. One communicator might alter their style in subtle ways that disarm the other
person and match the context so appropriately that their morphing effectively occurs below the
radar. In these circumstances, accommodation works in the background. However, just as the
violations of expectancies heighted the arousal of the other in Burgoon’s theory (ch. 7), the
response to more obvious forms of accommodation might be less than charitable. Though not
explicitly tackled in the chapter, Giles does discuss the impact of power on the expectations of
accommodation. A less powerful communicator may feel considerably more demands towards
convergence and sense an increasingly hostile reception if they choose to diverge (a claim
reminiscent of muted group theory, which your students may have just considered in ch. 33).
In these cases, it seems the expectation is actually to converge and anything else would be
The loss of parsimony and the difficulty of teaching
CAT epitomizes the “big hat, small rabbit” approach to theory building. Thus, it is
ambitious, powerful, and precise, but it is also bulky and difficult to maneuver. One
consequence of the big hat is that Giles sacrifices—or at least compromises—the scientific
criterion of simplicity, a point emphasized in the critique.
Theories of such breadth and depth can be taxing to teach in the condensed timeframe
of most college classes. I have found that a few key components will take students a long way
towards an understanding of CAT. The core of theory is about social acceptance. You might
want to unpack with your students some times when they felt most in need of acceptance by
others (e.g., first year orientation at college, going away to summer camp, or moving in with a
new roommate). As the theory would predict, these circumstances are likely to bring out strong
Would a rose by any other name would still be rated as positively?
As presented by Giles and in this chapter, accommodating to one’s partner is
commendable, more competent, and indeed makes communication more effective. However,
I can’t help but wonder if the same characterization would be made if accommodation was
viewed as caving in to social or peer pressure or conforming so as to manipulate the other’s
affections for you. In one extreme, convergence could be seen as rebuking many a parent’s
sage advice: “just because all your friends are jumping off a cliff, doesn’t mean you have to.”
Convergence for the sake of courting favor also seems problematic and of questionable ethics.
The highly rational animal
When reading Giles’ view of the accommodation process, one can’t help but notice the
lack of determinism and the generous measure of free will. Humans, in his assessment, are
cerebral, rational creatures with more than a little self-awareness and a good bit of a struggle
with self-confidence. William Howell proposed a Conscious-Competence model wherein
effective communicators are mindful of their abilities and purposeful about their application.
At first they are aware (conscious) of their behaviors and then gradually shift toward a state
where effective communication does not require significant effort (unconscious). Likewise, an
(non)accommodation is always purposeful. You might debate with your students whether they
would rather commit to a more purposeful, goal-directed approach or a habitual stance. You
could even debate whether the theory’s lack of clarity on this point is perhaps beneficial (a
“feature” rather than a “bug”).
Missing the critical edge
It seems to me that CAT is a strong explanation of the process of accommodation. But
one can’t help but wonder if, in its most basic form as presented in the chapter, there isn’t
enough discussion of power (particularly if you’re reading the book straight through,
encountering CAT immediately after standpoint theory and muted group theory). In the various
iterations of the theory, Giles and his coauthors have speculated that convergence is generally
“upwards” (i.e. a less powerful person moving toward the style of a more powerful
Sample Application Log
Peter
When I lived in England for a year, I really experienced communication accommodation theory.
When I first got there, I felt very American. That was what made me special. I felt like I had to
prove my patriotism because that was the group I identified with. For the first few months, I
actually became much more patriotic than I had ever been before. This came out largely in the
way I talked. I began saying “y’all” and other Americanisms simply because I wanted to
accentuate the fact that I was different. However, this divergence didn’t last too long. As I
Exercises and Activities
Local flavor
When Andrew teaches the theory, he plays on the local culture of Texas, where his
university is located. He has students initially break up into groups and brainstorm things that
are distinctive about Texan communication. They typically come up with examples like
speaking with the drawl of a Texan accent, a slower rate of speech, the pervasive “y’all” (which
Andrew and Giles talk about in his Conversations interview, available at afirstlook.com and
YouTube), as well as nonverbal markers like wearing boots, cowboy hats, and driving huge
pickup trucks. To indicate the absurdity of overaccommodation, Andrew asks what would’ve
happened if he, as someone not originally from Texas, came in on the first day of class wearing
a cowboy hat and a big belt buckle and greeted the class with an over-the-top “Howdy, y’all!”
Short-term travels versus long-term encounters
Any aspect of the theory can be checked against the encounters of your students.
Though Giles’ theory focuses broadly on intercultural situations, it seems more about long-term
exposure than short-term visits or travel. You might ask students about their travels—have they
felt the need to accommodate or, given the brief duration of their stays, is it just not worth the
effort? Ask students to list their adventures into different cultures—domestic or
internationally—and what types of modifications they made to the local culture. Did they even
notice how they were different in communicative style—or naively maintain their own patterns
be asked about entering the Greek experience. Students who live off campus or live at home
serve as another point of contrast, as do the experiences of transfer students and non-
traditional students. If you’re teaching the class online, even that could serve as an
intercultural transition, and perhaps an especially challenging one, if Walther’s social
information processing theory is right (the process of adaptation could take longer; see the
next section for further thoughts on the connection between technology theories and CAT).
True to the empirical roots of the theory, I would encourage your students to look for
patterns of behavior across people’s responses. What consistencies emerged in the students’
accounts? Is there a difference when one is just passing through (like a tourist or traveler)
versus when one is totally immersed into another culture? What might trigger even their
awareness of forms of accommodation in a given situation?
Social media practices
Much of the coverage of CAT in the chapter focuses on face–to-face interactions. But, a
quick glance at the “further resources” below reveals that researchers have also traced the
impact of accommodation in online and digital contexts. Ask students about their own online
practices or, better yet, ask them for examples of their own posts. What type of modifications
do they make when posting on various platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram) or
to various audiences (friends, general public)? Giles claims that accommodation is driven by
our perception of social distance. In an online environment, how are these things detected?
As you discuss these questions with students, you might ask them to recall both social
information processing theory (ch. 10) and media multiplexity theory (ch. 13). Consider how
accommodation might figure into those perspectives. SIP’s hyperpersonal perspective
suggests that self-presentation and attributions of similarity might improve our chances of
Pass the ball, Mister President
You might consider posing your own “hypothetical” situation based on this real-life
situation. In 2010, my college inaugurated a new president. In the later years of our former
president’s tenure, he wasn’t around campus very much due to capital campaigns. For the
next president, the college choose a relatively younger man (mid 40s) who is very active,
athletic, and highly communicative with students. He made it known to the student body that
he wanted to play on some IM (intramural) sports teams, and as you might imagine, a number
of eager students offered him a roster spot. He ended up playing on the soccer team of one of
my communication theory students.
When discussing CAT in class, Gabe brought up the situation. He said, “Problem is, we
don’t know what to call him.” It launched an excellent discussion in class; as players on the
same team, they were equals and thus convergence would be natural. But in the hierarchy of
the college, there are different expectations. Additionally, while a gifted athlete, Mister
President isn’t infallible and Gabe and his teammates really struggled with how to “bark” at
him from across the field to pass the ball more. You might tailor the example to your own
situation. How would your students change their demeanor if your president (or chancellor, or
Pass the soda
While one might be quick to claim, “I’d never do that! I don’t crave social acceptance,”
try to stimulate students to think about the conscious and unconscious ways we modify or
adjust our behavior to be more similar to those around us. One word of caution: you might
have to guide your students to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. When I started college, I roomed
with two New Yorkers and one Pennsylvanian. Without noticing it, speech patterns altered in
subtle ways. When I returned home (to the south side of Chicago) for holiday break, I asked
my father for a soda. His insulted reply: “you’re from Chicago. We say POP!” Ask your students
how they referred to brown, carbonated beverages and if they think that might change if
surrounded by people who called such beverages something else. Would they accommodate
to communicate or diverge to show themselves as a unique individual? The website
http://popvssoda.com might start the ball rolling on this conversation: it shows results
nationwide of where it is pop, soda, coke, or something else.
Television examples
Two great illustrations of accommodation can be found on the show Friends. In the
fifth season (episode 12), Chandler is invited to a party at the home of his boss to which he
brings Monica, with whom he has relatively recently become romantically involved. At the
party, Chandler reveals his “work laugh,” a rather obnoxious sound in response to his boss’s
rather un-funny jokes. Monica is disgusted and fails to understand his rationale until she sees
the consequences when he doesn’t laugh at the boss’ joke. By the end of the episode, both
Chandler and Monica are doing the “work laugh,” brilliantly illustrating the need to
accommodate, especially to those in more powerful positions.
Further Resources
Theoretical considerations
Margaret J. Pitts and Jake Harwood, “Communication Accommodation Competence: The
Nature and Nurture of Accommodative Resources Across the Lifespan,” Language &
Communication, Vol. 41, 2015, pp. 89-99.
Ronald E. Rice and Howard Giles, “The Contexts and Dynamics of Science Communication and
Language,” Journal of Language & Social Psychology, Vol. 36, 2017, pp. 127-139.
Catalina L. Toma, “Towards Conceptual Convergence: An Examination of Interpersonal
Adaptation,” Communication Quarterly, Vol. 62, 2014, pp. 155-178.
Healthcare
Rukhsana Ahmed and Benjamin R. Bates, “To Accommodate, or Not to Accommodate:
Exploring Patient Satisfaction with Doctors’ Accommodative Behavior During the Clinical
Encounter,” Journal of Communications in Healthcare, Vol. 9, 2016, pp. 22–32.
Lindsey B. Anderson and Melanie Morgan, “An Examination of Nurses’ Intergenerational
Communicative Experiences in the Workplace: Do Nurses Eat Their
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Inclinations Toward Compliance,” Communication Research Reports, Vol. 24, 2007, pp.
293-302.
Jason T. Mickel, Shian-Li McGuire, and Shelley Gross-Gray, “Grey’s Anatomy and
Communication Accommodation: Exploring Aspects of Nonverbal Interactions Portrayed
in Media,” Interpersona, Vol. 7, 2013, pp. 138-149.
Marilize Pretorius, “Communication Accommodation Theory Analysis of Nurse–Patient
Interaction: Implications for Course Design,” International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 28, 2018, pp. 71–85.
Interpersonal and family contexts
Colleen Warner Colaner, Jordan Soliz, and Leslie R. Nelson, “Communicatively Managing
Religious Identity Difference in Parent-Child Relationships: The Role of Accommodative
and Nonaccommodative Communication,” Journal of Family Communication, Vol. 14,
2014, pp. 310-327.
Sally D. Farley, Susan M. Hughes, and Jack N. LaFayette, “People Will Know We Are in Love:
Evidence of Differences Between Vocal Samples Directed Toward Lovers and
Friends,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 37, 2013, pp. 123-138.
Online or digital contexts
Chris Fullwood, Lisa J. Orchard, and Sarah A. Floyd, “Emoticon Convergence in Internet Chat
Rooms,” Social Semiotics, Vol. 23, 2013, pp. 648-662.
Kate Muir, Adam Joinson, Rachel Cotterill, and Nigel Dewdney, “Linguistic Style
Accommodation Shapes Impression Formation and Rapport in Computer-Mediated
Communication,” Journal of Language & Social Psychology, Vol. 36, 2017, pp. 525–
548.
Under- or nonaccommodation
Jessica Gasiorek, “‘I Was Impolite to Her Because That’s How She Was to Me’: Perceptions of
Motive and Young Adults’ Communicative Responses to
Underaccommodation,” Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 77, 2013, pp. 604–
624.
Jessica Gasiorek and Marko Dragojevic, “The Effects of Accumulated Underaccommodation on
Perceptions of Underaccommodative Communication and Speakers,” Human
Communication Research, Vol. 43, 2017, pp. 276-294.
Jessica Gasiorek and Howard Giles, “The Role of Inferred Motive in Processing
Other applications and contexts for CAT
Amanda Denes, Jessica Gasiorek, and Howard Giles, “‘Don’t Touch That Dial’: Accommodating
Musical Preferences in Interpersonal Relationships,” Psychology of Music, Vol. 44,
2016, pp. 1193-1201.
Xing Fang, “When an Indian Speaks to a Chinese: Making Sense of World Englishes in the
Framework of Communication Accommodation Theory,” Asian Englishes, Vol. 19, 2017,
pp. 100-115.
Robert M. McCann and Howard Giles, “Communication With People of Different Ages in the
Workplace: Thai and American Data,” Human Communication Research, Vol. 32, 2006,
pp. 74-108.