The effect of extroversion on communication: Evidence from an interlocutor visibility manipulation

O'Carroll, Sinead; Nicoladis, Elena; Smithson, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.specom.2015.01.005

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some have claimed that thinking about the source of gesture and thinking about the function of gesture are separate endeavors (e.g., Novack & Goldin-Meadow, 2017), we argue that considering the source of gestures can inform theories about their function. Specifically, if gestures arise from a mind that is engaged in active simulation, this may explain how gestures accomplish the functions they do.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Gsa Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Thus, we believe the framework has largely stood up to empirical test. At the same time, we appreciate the perspectives of the framework's critics (e.g., Pouw, de Nooijer, van Gog, Zwaan, & Paas, 2014) and of those who have offered alternative conceptualizations of gestures (e.g., Novack & Goldin-Meadow, 2017). In the next section, we address several specific challenges to the framework that have been raised.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This discrepancy between gesture and action has led to the criticism that the GSA framework puts too much emphasis on actions. Some researchers contend that the emphasis should instead be on gestures' status as representations of action (Novack & Goldin-Meadow, 2017). Gestures seem to strengthen speakers' mental representations Trofatter, Kontra, Beilock, & Goldin-Meadow, 2015), and they can encourage generalization of information to new contexts (Novack, Congdon, Hemani-Lopez, & Goldin-Meadow, 2014)-qualities that may not be shared by actions.…”

Section: Gestures Are Not Exactly Like Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Producing gestures appears to be more powerful for learning than producing actions on objects (Novack et al, 2014;Stieff, Lira, & Scopelitis, 2016), using spatial language (So, Shum, & Wong, 2015), or seeing someone else produce gestures (Goldin-Meadow et al, 2012). Recent theoretical descriptions of how gestures might come to have their facilitative effects have focused on the role of gesture in schematizing information for speakers (Kita et al, 2017) or on their status as representational (rather than actual) actions (Novack & Goldin-Meadow, 2017).…”

Section: Limitations Of the Gsa Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gesture as simulated action: Revisiting the framework

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Gesture as Simulated Action (GSA) framework was proposed to explain how gestures arise from embodied simulations of the motor and perceptual states that occur during speaking and thinking (Hostetter & Alibali, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 495-514, 2008). In this review, we revisit the framework's six main predictions regarding gesture rates, gesture form, and the cognitive cost of inhibiting gesture. We find that the available evidence largely supports the main predictions of the framework. We also consider several challenges to the framework that have been raised, as well as several of the framework's limitations as it was originally proposed. We offer additional elaborations of the framework to address those challenges that fall within the framework's scope, and we conclude by identifying key directions for future work on how gestures arise from an embodied mind.

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of the Gsa Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gestures Are Not Exactly Like Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations Of the Gsa Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gesture as simulated action: Revisiting the framework

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many individual differences other than proficiency that could be driving these correlations. Some examples include personality, storytelling style, and cognitive skills, such as verbal memory capacity (Hostetter & Alibali, 2007;Hostetter & Potthoff, 2012;Nagpal et al, 2011;O'Carroll, Nicoladis & Smithson, 2015;Smithson & Nicoladis, 2013).…”

Section: Other Factors Influencing Gesture Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“My French is rusty”: Proficiency and bilingual gesture use in a majority English community

Aziz

Nicoladis

2018

Bilingualism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gestures serve many functions, including aiding language access and message construction, particularly in spatial tasks. Some researchers have argued that gesture frequency is linked to proficiency in bilinguals, although results have been inconsistent. We tested Nicoladis’ (2007) proposal that bilinguals’ proficiency interacts with task: namely, more spatial tasks elicit greater proficiency effects. French–English bilinguals completed a cartoon-retell task (high spatial) and an interview task (low spatial) in both languages. We measured bilingual proficiency categorically by first language (L1) and continuously by assessing receptive vocabulary, oral fluency, and word types. Participants gestured more in the cartoon-retell task, but there were minimal proficiency effects and no interactions between proficiency and task. Interestingly, only participants with English as their L1 gestured more in their second language (L2), potentially due to ‘rustiness’, or lexical access difficulties in French from low usage in the majority English community.

show abstract