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

Abstract

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

Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction

“…Burgoon and Newton (In press) found differences between actors' and videotape observers' assessments of the same stimulus conversations on Intimacy, composure/relaxation, and equality; conversational participants rated their partners more favorably than did the coders. Street, Mulac, and Wiemann (1988) found a similar effect. Actors rated their partners' conversation higher In communication satisfaction, competence, and aesthetic quality than did audio or audio-video tape observers, who In turn made higher ratings than transcript readers.…”

Attributions for nonverbal expressions of liking and disliking: The extended self‐serving bias

“…Several scholars have investigated and theorized about the differences in receivers' and observers' reactions to behavior. While receivers' and observers' perceptions are expected to covary (Burgoon & Newton, 1991), a number of studies have documented a "positivity bias" whereby participant receivers judge an actor's behavior more favorably than do observers (e.g., Kellermann, 1989;Manusov, 1993;Street, Mulac, & Wiemann, 1988). This effect is thought to reflect the difference in receivers' and observers' perceptual stance (see Krugalanski, 1989), in which receivers are subjected to the implications of actors' behaviors while observers are not.…”

Judgments of communicative intent in conversation

“…One primary and well-documented difference between the reactions of observers and participants is that participants tend to make more favorable judgments about the other participantÕs personality and behavior than do observers, a difference known as the positivity bias (Burgoon & Newton, 1991;Manusov, 1993;Monahan, 1995;Street, Mulac, & Wieman, 1988). Monahan (1995) examined two factors that differ between participants and observers: self-presentation concerns and information processing load.…”