Individual differences in vocal activity rhythm: Fourier analysis of cyclicity in amount of talk

Abstract

Speakers in informal conversations tend to alternate regularly between lower and higher amounts of talking; the periods of these low/high activity cycles are on the order of 3, 6, and 15 minutes. Statistically significant periodicities occurred in 55% of the conversations studied. The periodograms that describe the partition of variance among periodic components show consistent individual differences in the cyclic patterning of vocal activity. Discriminant analysis used the amount of variance accounted for by each of the 12 lowest-frequency periodic components as discriminating variables to see whether speakers could be identified on the basis of the cyclic patterns in vocal activity. Speakers were discriminated and classified at levels well above chance. This suggests that there are consistent individual differences among speakers in the length of cycles in amount of talk.

Cyclicity of vocal activity increases during conversation: Support for a nonlinear systems model of dyadic social interaction

“…Warner & Mooney (1988) found t h a t individual speakers tended t o exhibit fairly consistent cycle lengths, even when paired with 3 different partners on 3 different occasions.…”

Coordinated interpersonal timing in the conversations of children who stutter and their mothers and fathers

“…While individuals and different types of dyads generate relatively stable and characteristic temporal speech patterns, it has been shown that these patterns appear to be sensitive to a host of psychological, situational and perhaps even biological conditions (e.g., Warner & Mooney, 1988;Welkowitz et al, 1990). This is not surprising given that the phenomenon of CIT itself is interpreted to be an example of empathic behavior in that it reflect the familiarity with, and responsiveness of each conversationalist to the speech rhythms of the other (Welkowitz & Kuc, 1973).…”

Sequential analysis of social interaction: Assessing internal versus social determinants of behavior.

“…Chappie's (1970) theory would predict this type of coupling between behavioral and physiological rhythms. Second, cycle lengths in amount of talk are fairly consistent within a speaker across different partners and occasions (Warner & Mooney, 1988). Chappie suggested that, because there are con-sistent individual differences in biological rhythms, one would expect similar individual differences in the cycle length of behavioral rhythms.…”

“…In one, investigators who were primarily interested in partner influence used time series regression to obtain an R2INC that can be interpreted as an index of the strength of social influence (e.g., Levenson & Gottman, 1983). In the other, investigators who are primarily interested in cyclicity use frequency domain analyses to assess degree of cyclicity (e.g., Gottman & Ringland, 1981; Warner, 1979; Warner et al, 1983; Warner & Mooney, 1988). Some researchers have theorized that for certain types of dyads such as married couples, more predictable or structured interactions (and particularly interactions in which behaviors and physiological states are highly predictable between partners) are associated with negative affect or even clinical pathology (Gottman, 1979); this belief has been associated with a time series regression approach to interaction analysis.…”