Chaoqun Zheng, Pavel Trofimovich, Rachael Lindberg, Kim McDonough, Masatoshi Sato
{"title":"Do they like me?: Exploring the role of metaperception in L1–L2 speaker interaction","authors":"Chaoqun Zheng, Pavel Trofimovich, Rachael Lindberg, Kim McDonough, Masatoshi Sato","doi":"10.1017/s0272263124000469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People are frequently concerned about the impressions they make on others (referred to as metaperceptions), but their insights are often inaccurate. Illustrating the phenomenon called the liking gap, speakers interacting in their first language (L1) and second language (L2) tend to underestimate how much they are liked by their interlocutor, and these judgments often predict their desire to engage in future interaction and collaboration. To understand the scope of this bias and its consequences, we focused on L1–L2 dyadic interaction, examining metaperception as a potential barrier to conversations between university students. We recruited 58 previously unacquainted university students to perform a 10-min academic discussion task between one L1 and one L2 speaker. Afterward, the speakers (a) assessed each other’s interpersonal liking, speaking skill, and interactional behavior; (b) provided their metaperceptions of their interlocutor’s assessments of the same dimensions; and (c) estimated their interest in future interaction with the same interlocutor. All speakers showed a reliable metaperception bias to underestimate their interpersonal liking, speaking skill, and interactional behavior. However, only L1 speakers’ desire to engage in future interaction was associated with their metaperceptions of interpersonal liking. We discuss implications of this finding for understanding and promoting academic communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":22008,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263124000469","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
People are frequently concerned about the impressions they make on others (referred to as metaperceptions), but their insights are often inaccurate. Illustrating the phenomenon called the liking gap, speakers interacting in their first language (L1) and second language (L2) tend to underestimate how much they are liked by their interlocutor, and these judgments often predict their desire to engage in future interaction and collaboration. To understand the scope of this bias and its consequences, we focused on L1–L2 dyadic interaction, examining metaperception as a potential barrier to conversations between university students. We recruited 58 previously unacquainted university students to perform a 10-min academic discussion task between one L1 and one L2 speaker. Afterward, the speakers (a) assessed each other’s interpersonal liking, speaking skill, and interactional behavior; (b) provided their metaperceptions of their interlocutor’s assessments of the same dimensions; and (c) estimated their interest in future interaction with the same interlocutor. All speakers showed a reliable metaperception bias to underestimate their interpersonal liking, speaking skill, and interactional behavior. However, only L1 speakers’ desire to engage in future interaction was associated with their metaperceptions of interpersonal liking. We discuss implications of this finding for understanding and promoting academic communication.
期刊介绍:
Studies in Second Language Acquisition is a refereed journal of international scope devoted to the scientific discussion of acquisition or use of non-native and heritage languages. Each volume (five issues) contains research articles of either a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods nature in addition to essays on current theoretical matters. Other rubrics include shorter articles such as Replication Studies, Critical Commentaries, and Research Reports.