Slippery politicians?

Psychologist

Volumn 16, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 592-595

  Bull, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242511123     PISSN: 09528229     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N. & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Bull, P.E. (1994). On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 115-131.
3. Bull, P.E. (1997). Queen of Hearts or Queen of the Arts of Implication? Implicit criticisms and their implications for equivocation theory in the interview between Martin Bashir and Diana, Princess of Wales. Social Psychological Review, 1, 27-36.
4. Bull, P.E. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
5. Bull, P.E. (2000). Equivocation and the rhetoric of modernisation: An analysis of televised interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 222-247.
6. Bull, P.E. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Routledge.
7. Bull, P.E., Elliott, J., Palmer, D. & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 267-284.
8. Bull, RE. & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology, 14, 651-666.
9. Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Hamilton, M.A. & Mineo, P.J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35.
11. Harris, S. (1991). Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P. Scannell (Ed.) Broadcast talk (pp.76-99). London: Sage.