Objective: This randomly controlled experiment tested a theory of how experienced physicians solve the dilemma of communicating bad news by using implicit language.
Methods: 8 physicians delivered both bad and good news to 16 analogue patients. Microanalysis of their news delivery reliably identified departures from explicit language.
Results: As predicted, the physicians used implicit language at a significantly higher rate when delivering bad news than good news. For bad news, they tended to use alternative terms for the diagnosis, to qualify their evaluation, to underemphasize certainty, and to subtly separate the patient from the disease. The evidence both within and after the interview indicated that recipients still understood the bad news.
Conclusion: (1) The skilful use of implicit language is a solution to the dilemma of honest but not harsh communication of bad news. (2) Experimental methods can complement surveys and qualitative studies for investigating bad news delivery by providing a theoretical foundation and controlled conditions.
Practice implications: Physicians can deliver bad news honestly without being blunt by skilfully incorporating implicit language. The theory, data, and examples presented here provide insights into the nature and functions of implicit language, from which students and practitioners can develop their individual styles.