In memoriam
Obituary: Janet Beavin Bavelas (1940-2022)
Jennifer Gerwing (with thank you to Sara Healing and Judith Holler)
On December 12, 2022, the gesture community lost a pioneering scholar and former President of the ISGS. Janet Beavin Bavelas died peacefully among friends in Victoria, B.C., Canada.
Outside the gesture community, Janet is best known for co-authoring Pragmatics of Human Communication with Paul Watzlawick and Don Jackson (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson, 1967). Published when Janet was only 27 years old, it was available in hardback until recently and is still available (without revision) in paperback, as an e-book, and in eight translations (Bavelas, 2021). Janet co-wrote this book while at the Mental Research Institute (MRI) in Palo Alto, CA, where she worked full-time from 1961 to 1966, then part-time while in graduate school at Stanford University until 1970. Her proceeds from Pragmatics funded her graduate education at Stanford University (Meyen, 2012).
In 1970, Janet accepted a position at University of Victoria, Department of Psychology, where she planned to do research that would take the tentative axioms proposed in Pragmatics further. As she embarked on her career as an academic research psychologist, her long-range goal was to find or create experimental methods that could inform and expand the study of interpersonal communication (Bavelas, 2021). Janet wrote that one of the biggest influences of that time was the guiding principle that she and Paul Watzlawick followed: the necessity to see beyond and outside individuals and to focus on their interactions, that is, on communicative rather than mental phenomena (Bavelas, 2007a). This influence was evident in her work on gesture- she was firmly committed to studying gesture experimentally without sacrificing the extemporaneous quality of dialogic interaction. Janet wrote that it took her a couple of decades to figure out such experimental methodology, acknowledging that her advances were greatly aided by others who dared to do the same around the same time (Bavelas, 2021).
Within gesture studies, motor mimicry (i.e., when an observer responds in a way that would be appropriate to the situation of the person he or she is observing) was the first phenomenon Janet investigated. She and those in her research group struggled to elicit spontaneous motor mimicry in the lab. However, after 17 pilot tests, they were finally successful, which led them to design an elegant experiment that revealed its social precondition: eye contact. Each participant witnessed one of the experimenters suffer an apparently painful mishap, when he and the other experimenter dropped a heavy monitor onto his conspicuously splinted finger. In both conditions, the “injured” experimenter demonstrated pain with his face and did a sharp intake of breath. In the experimental condition, he simultaneously made eye contact with the participant. In the control condition, he looked away. The research group’s analysis of the videorecordings of the participants showed that the pattern and timing of the participants’ motor mimicry were significantly affected by the visual availability of the experimenter (Bavelas, Black, Lemery, and Mullett, 1986; see her review of this program of research in Bavelas, 2007b).
For Janet, the key to investigating all the fleeting actions people do in conversation was videorecording, which she said in a newspaper article at the time "was to nonverbal communication what the microscope was to biology". With co-workers who could manage the technical specifications needed to realize her vision, Janet created the Human Interaction Lab at University of Victoria. The lab had four tightly synchronized cameras that could be tilted, zoomed, and combined into various screen configurations. In a reflection of her ethical allergy to deceiving participants and her general belief in their intelligence, Janet refused to use the dark glass panels to cover the cameras, preferring them to be in full view. Indeed, she found that the conversational interaction in the experimental tasks kept participants sufficiently engaged, allowing them to disregard the presence of the cameras. Most participants expressed enthusiasm and curiosity when being debriefed and viewing their recorded videos afterwards.
In follow-up experiments aimed at situating motor mimicry in dialogue, the research team elicited it by instructing participants to take turns telling each other close-call stories (when something terrible could have happened but did not). While speakers told their stories, addressees would display reactions that fit precisely with what the speaker was saying at the moment, building up to displays of concern, surprise, pain, and even complex displays matching the speakers' tone of horror blended with humour. In one of the experiments, Janet and her group implemented a task that focused addressees on the speakers' words but away from their meaning (counting their words that began with the letter "t"). As a result, the addressees' motor mimicry responses disappeared, and, in turn, the speakers' stories became objectively worse (Bavelas, Coates, and Johnson, 2000). (In later years, even though the t-counting task proved a powerful means for distracting listeners, Janet's concern for how visibly embarrassed the speakers became drove her to dissuade us- quite unequivocally- from ever using the design again.) Her research group also studied the role of gaze in the timing of addressees' responses (Bavelas, Coates, and Johnson, 2002), and her Ph.D. student Nicole Chovil conducted a comprehensive study of speakers' facial displays in face-to-face dialogue (e.g., Chovil, 1991).
Later, Janet conducted a diverse range of studies, capturing collaboration more explicitly (Bavelas, Gerwing, Allison, and Sutton, 2011), incorporating speakers' facial gestures (Bavelas, Gerwing, and Healing, 2014a, see also Bavelas and Chovil, 2018), and showing how dialogic interaction elicited not just speakers' co-speech hand gestures, but also other demonstrations, namely, facial displays, direct quotations, and metaphors (Bavelas, Gerwing, and Healing, 2014b). Janet's last contribution of empirical gesture work returned to the issue of how the status of information as given or new influences the form of co-speech hand gestures (Holler, Bavelas, Woods, Geiger, and Simons, 2022). This study was a collaboration with Judith Holler and Janet took great pleasure with the fact that two different labs in different parts of the world could produce complementary results that could be published together.
Janet and her research group also began investigating conversational hand gestures. Likely more familiar to the ISGS community, these studies included a series on interactive gestures (Bavelas, Chovil, Lawrie, and Wade, 1992; Bavelas, Chovil, Coates, and Roe, 1995), as well as a series on how speakers' gestures were influenced by imagined addressees (Bavelas, Kenwood, Johnson, and Phillips, 2002), common ground (Gerwing and Bavelas, 2004), and mutual visibility and dialogic interaction (Bavelas, Gerwing, Sutton, and Prevost, 2008). Examining the last study highlighted inconsistencies in the literature on mutual visibility and gesture rate, prompting a stand-alone review of the studies (Bavelas and Healing, 2013). The review highlighted a clear pattern: studies differed in their findings on gesture rate based on whether addressees were allowed to interact freely or whether their responses were experimentally constrained (e.g., by employing confederates). Studies with free interaction found no reduction in speakers' gesture rate, while studies with constrained interactions observed a decrease.
Over the years, Janet’s research group conducted analyses of video recordings using systematic but relatively tacit procedures, and a few of us eventually persuaded her to consolidate our method, which she termed microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue (Bavelas, Gerwing, Healing, and Tomori, 2016). This term linked back to her scholarly roots (Bavelas, McGee, Phillips, and Routledge, 2000), echoing the milieu of visiting scholars at the MRI who had awakened her passion for the close analysis of filmed interaction (Bavelas, 2021) against the backdrop of the Natural History of the Interview (Leeds-Hurwitz and Kendon, 2021).
Indeed, Janet was fierce. In her everyday scholarship, she demonstrated almost obsessively high standards and integrity, so much so that she became rather outraged when others were less meticulous, for example, when they cited her work incorrectly (Bavelas, 2007b). Despite her strong opposition to being labelled a feminist, she not only survived but thrived in a predominantly male-dominated world. With unwavering determination, she advocated for female scholars within her milieu, fighting against various challenges, from the bureaucratic pressure to choose between family and academia to discrimination and sexual abuse.
Janet worked on an island, both literally (Vancouver Island) and figuratively: While inspired by scholars such as Adam Kendon and David McNeill, her work and research team incubated in practical isolation at University of Victoria. When Christine Kenwood and I attended the 2002 ISGS conference in Austin, Texas with her, it was the first time we met members of this vibrant community. However, except for her later work with Judith Holler (Holler and Bavelas, 2017; Holler, et al., 2022), Janet chose not to foster collaborations with gesture researchers outside our group. She was nonetheless fascinated by the writings of qualitatively-oriented scholars whose observations "in the wild" showed parallels to what she elicited in the lab (e.g., Charles Goodwin, Adam Kendon, Jürgen Streeck). She was also a passionate cheerleader for others who used dialogic interaction in experiments and was well known for her vocal commitment to this choice (Bavelas and Healing, 2013), even using the term "dialogicide" for those who restricted the addresses' behaviours in order to impose their idea of experimental control (Gerwing and Bavelas, 2013).
Janet's research program was entirely curiosity-driven, and she was curious about many things. Notably, her empirical work on co-speech hand and facial gestures constituted only approximately 10% of her over 100 publications. She was always most excited about the new directions opened up by her latest findings, much more so than dwelling on past achievements. Throughout her career, she made her academic curiosities intelligible to research councils and used her funding to pursue her own goals rather than the latest social psychology fads or what might attract more funding most easily. She tended to be skeptical about aiming dissemination towards high-impact journals and instead just wanted to get the publications "out there": She thought of publications as "tossing messages out in bottles, that others might find and take in new directions" (Bavelas, 2021).
Indeed, Janet's passion for mentoring young talent must be singled out. Her approach is exemplified in a brilliant essay she loved sharing with junior scholars. In it, she invites them to nurture their intuitions and provides detailed instructions for how to be creative and scientific (Bavelas, 1987). Janet encouraged applying an exploratory, inductive approach to all projects she supervised, even among undergraduates. As a result, her students (including myself) gained a sense of ownership over their projects and the pride in individual achievement. We learned the habit of fastidious attention to detail—not automatically dismissing anomalous observations but rather seeking and testing possible explanations first. For example, our work on the linguistic influences on gesture form emerged because Janet gave me time to review our pilot videos carefully, openly, and inquisitively. When confronted with one participant’s unexpected gestural behaviour, I paid attention and asked, "What was different this time?". Janet’s and my ensuing discussions made us alert to the potential influence of common ground between participants, something quite far from the project's original intention. A new series of pilot studies began, culminating in our published experiment (Gerwing and Bavelas, 2004). Janet expressed a very caring and selfless nature in so many ways, from her style of supervision and seemingly endless support to more junior scholars to caring about disadvantaged populations way beyond academia.
Despite eschewing both fads and strategic planning, Janet received recognition as a scholar: She was an elected fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association (1980), the International Communication Association (1993), and the Royal Society of Canada (1995). In 1997, she was awarded "Outstanding Career Scholar" from the Language and Social Interaction Division of the International Communication Association. She was president of ISGS 2005- 2007 and was on the editorial board of Gesture for several years, as well as the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science; Family Process; Canadian Psychology; Human Communication Research; Text; Communication Theory; Journal of Language and Social Psychology; Communication Monographs; and Research on Language and Social Interaction. In 2000, she was awarded the University of Victoria Faculty of Social Sciences Award for Teaching Excellence, something she was particularly proud of. She was a fantastic teacher.
In 2022, Janet published her last book, her magnum opus, Face-to-face dialogue: Theory, research, and applications (Bavelas, 2022). This book was the culmination of what she had accomplished as an experimental social psychologist, and in its conclusion, she wrote that she hoped that other researchers, especially new generations, would become interested in what makes face-to-face dialogue unique so that they could contribute new parts of the puzzle. One of her last hopes was to live to see the book in print, and she was thrilled when the box of books from Oxford University Press arrived on her doorstep, and she could begin distributing signed copies to friends and colleagues.
Finally, no one who visited Janet could possibly forget her much-loved, gigantic Newfoundland dogs, who, in between long bouts of sleeping at her feet, romped around her bucolic property and greeted visitors with unabashed exuberance. In many ways, these dogs captured her personality: deeply caring, loyal, and supportive, but not to be messed with and sturdy as hell.
References
Bavelas, J. B. (1987). Permitting creativity in science. In D. N. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 307-327). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bavelas, J. B. (2007a). Writing with Paul. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 295-297.
Bavelas, J.B. (2007b). Face-to-face dialogue as a micro-social context. The example of motor mimicry. In S. Duncan, E. Levy, & J. Cassell (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language (pp. 127-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bavelas, J. B. (2021). Pragmatics of Human Communication 50 Years Later. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 40(2), 3-25.
Bavelas, J. B. (2022). Face-to-face dialogue: Theory, research, and applications. Oxford University Press.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). "I show how you feel." Motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 322-329.
Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (2006). Hand gestures and facial displays as part of language use in face-to-face dialogue. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), Handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 97-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Bavelas, J. B., & Chovil, N. (2018). Some pragmatic functions of conversational facial gestures. Gesture, 17(1), 98-127.
Bavelas, J. B., Chovil, N., Coates, L., and Roe, L. (1995). Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 394-405.
Bavelas, J. B., Chovil, N., Lawrie, D. A., & Wade, A. (1992). Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes, 15, 469-489.
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 941-952.
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566-580.
Bavelas, J. B., Gerwing, G., Allison, M., & Sutton, C. (2011). Dyadic Evidence for Grounding with Abstract Deictic Gestures. In Stam, G., Ishino, M., & Ashley, R. (Eds.), Integrating gestures: The Interdisciplinary Nature of Gesture (pp. 49-60). Amsterdam: Benjamins
Bavelas, J. B., Gerwing, J., & Healing, S. (2014a). Including facial gestures in gesture-speech ensembles. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance. Essays in honor of Adam Kendon (pp. 15-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bavelas, J. B., Gerwing, J., & Healing, S. (2014b). Effects of dialogue on demonstrations: Direct quotations, facial portrayals, hand gestures, and figurative references. Discourse Processes, 51, 619–655.
Bavelas, J. B., Gerwing, J., Healing, S., & Tomori, C. (2016). Microanalysis of Face-to-face Dialogue. An Inductive Approach. In C. A. VanLear & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Researching communication interaction behavior: A sourcebook of methods and measures (pp. 129-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bavelas, J. B., Gerwing, J., Sutton, C., & Prevost, D. (2008). Gesturing on the telephone: Independent effects of dialogue and visibility. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 495-520.
Bavelas, J. B., & Healing, S. (2013). Reconciling the effects of mutual visibility on gesturing. A review. Gesture, 13, 63-92.
Bavelas, J. B., Kenwood, C., Johnson, T., & Phillips, B. (2002). An experimental study of when and how speakers use gestures to communicate. Gesture, 2, 1-17.
Bavelas, J. B., McGee, D., Phillips, B., & Routledge, R. (2000). Microanalysis of communication in psychotherapy. Human Systems, 11, 47-66.
Chovil, N. (1991). Discourse‐oriented facial displays in conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25(1-4), 163-194.
Gerwing, J., & Bavelas, J.B. (2004). Linguistic influences on gesture's form. Gesture, 4, 157-195.
Gerwing, J., & Bavelas, J. (2013). The social interactive nature of gestures: Theory, assumptions, methods, and findings. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S.H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Tessendorf (Eds.), Body-language-communication, Volume I, Contemporary approaches (Ch. IV, no.51, pp. 816-831). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Holler, J., & Bavelas, J. B. (2017). On the Multi-Modal Communication of Common Ground - A review and examination of social functions. In R. B. Church, M. W. Alibali, & S. Kelly (Eds.), Why gesture? How the hands function in speaking, thinking, and communicating (pp. 213-240). Amsterdam NL: Benjamins.
Holler, J., Bavelas, J., Woods, J., Geiger, M., & Simons, L. (2022). Given-new effects on the duration of gestures and of words in face-to-face dialogue. Discourse Processes, 59(8), 619-645.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W., & Kendon, A. (2021). The Natural History of an Interview and the microanalysis of behavior in social interaction: A critical moment in research practice. Holisms of communication: The early history of audio-visual sequence analysis, 4, 145.
Meyen, M. (2012). International Communication Association Fellows: A Collective Biography. International Journal of Communication, 6.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.