Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation

Bennett, Adrian T.

doi:10.1080/01638538109544513

Cited by 73 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However we should point out that specific condition by condition analyses indicate that moderate nonverbal disagreement might not be as harmful as constant disagreement for the credibility dimensions, although the trends are always in the hypothesized directions. This finding is consistent with our hypotheses, with previous theoretical work suggesting that norm violators are perceived suspiciously (e.g., Levine, et al, 2000), with research indicating that violations of turn-taking rules (i.e., verbal interruptions) are associated with negative consequences for the violator (Bennett, 1981;Chambliss & Feeny, 1992;LaFrance, 1992;Place & Becker, 1991;Robinson & Reis, 1989), and with studies suggesting that candidates are less effective when they are not polite during debates (Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

Seiter

Weger

Jensen

et al. 2010

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effects of background nonverbal behavior displayed with the purpose of undermining one's opponent in televised debates. Students watched one of four versions of a televised debate. In each, while the speaking debater appeared on the main screen, subscreens displayed her nonspeaking opponent's background nonverbal behavior. In one version, the non-speaking debater remained "stone faced" during her opponent's speech, while in the other three she nonverbally displayed occasional disagreement, nearly constant disagreement, or both agreement and disagreement. After viewing the debates, students rated the debaters' credibility, appropriateness, objectivity, and debate skills, in addition to judging who won the debate. Analysis indicated that background nonverbal behavior influenced audience perceptions of debaters' credibility, appropriateness, objectivity, debate skill, and the extent to which the debate was won. These results suggest that adding nonverbal agreement to expressions of nonverbal disagreement do not reduce the negative impacts of communicating disagreement nonverbally during an opponent's speech and may in fact further decrease the audiences' perception of a debater's credibility and overall performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

Seiter

Weger

Jensen

et al. 2010

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turn duration has influenced perceptions of communicators' power, influence, and leadership ability (Cappella, 1985;Stang, 1973). Interruptions have been related to the extent to which conversants are considered fluent, domineering, socially appropriate, and conversationally effective (Bennett, 1981;Hawkins, 1987). Finally, vocal back-channels (e.g.,"l see," "really?"…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Speech Evaluation Differences as a Function of Perspective (Participant Versus Observer) and Presentational Medium

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using 40 naturally occurring conversations (20 same sex and 20 mixed sex), the purpose of this study was to examine differences among speech behavior-social evaluation relationships as a function of whether the evaluator's perspectiw was that of a participant or an observer and, if the latter, whether the presentational medium involwd an audiovisual, audio-only, or transcriptual recording. Speech behaviors examined included conversants' speech rates, turn durations, interruptive speakovers, and vocal back-channels and the degree to which they performed these speech behaviors similar to those of their partners. Social evaluative dimensions examined included communication satisfaction, communicatiw competence, sociointellectual status, aesthetic quality, and dynamism. Severalfindings were noteworthy. First, participants viewed their conuersational partners most favorably and transcript readers viewed them least favorably. Second, there were few significant correlations between social evaluative judgments across different perceivers' perspectives. Third, while the perceivers' social judgments of conversants were often related to the conuersants' speech behaviors, there was little consistency across perceivers'perspectives regarding which speech behaviors were predictive of these judgments. Specifically, the Richard L. Street, Jr. (Ph.D., University of Texas, 1980) is an associate professor of speech communication at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Anthony Mulac (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1969) is a professor of communication at the University of California, Santahrbara, CA. John M. Wiemann (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1975) is an associate professor of communication at

show abstract

“…An exploration of the efficacy of such an environment and its potential for SLA/CALL research has yet to be fully explored. For example, whether such interruptions in such a tri-pane environment are viewed by participants as disruptive or as contributing cooperatively (Bennett, 1981) is an empirical question not yet explored in this environment. 5…”

Section: Limitations ''Interruptions'' In Scmcmentioning

confidence: 97%

Interruptions in chat

Smith

Sauro

2009

Computer Assisted Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research on text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC), while generally acknowledging the potential benefits afforded by the medium's capacity for extensive self-repair, has done little in the way of exploration of the nature of such text. Indeed, until quite recently, output logs have been favored almost exclusively at the expense of richer records of the interaction that can better account for this deleted text. Another basic aspect of SCMC interaction is the occurrence of interruptions initiated by one's interlocutor during the message composition phase. The possible effect of these interruptions on the chat interaction, however, has again been largely ignored in the literature. This study examines the relationship between these interruptions and deleted text as well as the effect such interruptions have on the subsequent output produced by learners.

show abstract

Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation

Cited by 73 publications

References 2 publications

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

The Role of Background Behavior in Televised Debates: Does Displaying Nonverbal Agreement and/or Disagreement Benefit Either Debater?

Speech Evaluation Differences as a Function of Perspective (Participant Versus Observer) and Presentational Medium

Interruptions in chat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About