Differentiation and integration: The addressee perspective-taking strategy in three-party conversation

IF 2.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Acta Psychologica Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104908
Xiaobei Zheng , Chao Sun
{"title":"Differentiation and integration: The addressee perspective-taking strategy in three-party conversation","authors":"Xiaobei Zheng ,&nbsp;Chao Sun","doi":"10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In conversations, people take the perspectives of others when engaging in referential understanding. Previous studies have primarily focused on dialogues between two participants. However, as the number of conversational partners increases, the perspective-taking strategies may change. This study specifically investigated a situation in which the addressee faces two speakers who take turns giving referential instructions. In Experiment 1, the perspectives of Speaker 1 and the addressee participants were consistent, while the perspectives of Speaker 2 and the addressee participants were inconsistent. In Experiment 2, the perspectives of both speakers were consistent but differed from the addressee's perspective. The results showed that, in Experiment 1, participants distinguished between the perspectives of the two speakers when interpreting noun reference, but no difference was found in Experiment 2. However, when comparing the results of Experiments 1 and 2, it was found that, despite the perspective of Speaker 2 remaining unchanged, participants in Experiment 1 were more egocentric than in Experiment 2 when interpreting Speaker 2's discourse. The pattern of strategic change was aligned with the interpretation of Speaker 1. This suggests that participants, to some extent, integrate the perspectives of both speakers. The results were further discussed based on the consideration of their partner's audience design strategies, use of a “Grounding by Proxy” strategy, or the calculation of a probabilistic weight of different perspectives.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7141,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychologica","volume":"255 ","pages":"Article 104908"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychologica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825002215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In conversations, people take the perspectives of others when engaging in referential understanding. Previous studies have primarily focused on dialogues between two participants. However, as the number of conversational partners increases, the perspective-taking strategies may change. This study specifically investigated a situation in which the addressee faces two speakers who take turns giving referential instructions. In Experiment 1, the perspectives of Speaker 1 and the addressee participants were consistent, while the perspectives of Speaker 2 and the addressee participants were inconsistent. In Experiment 2, the perspectives of both speakers were consistent but differed from the addressee's perspective. The results showed that, in Experiment 1, participants distinguished between the perspectives of the two speakers when interpreting noun reference, but no difference was found in Experiment 2. However, when comparing the results of Experiments 1 and 2, it was found that, despite the perspective of Speaker 2 remaining unchanged, participants in Experiment 1 were more egocentric than in Experiment 2 when interpreting Speaker 2's discourse. The pattern of strategic change was aligned with the interpretation of Speaker 1. This suggests that participants, to some extent, integrate the perspectives of both speakers. The results were further discussed based on the consideration of their partner's audience design strategies, use of a “Grounding by Proxy” strategy, or the calculation of a probabilistic weight of different perspectives.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
区分与整合:三方对话中的收件人视角策略
在对话中,人们在进行参照性理解时采用他人的观点。以前的研究主要集中在两个参与者之间的对话。然而,随着对话伙伴数量的增加,换位思考策略可能会发生变化。本研究专门调查了一种情况,即收件人面对两个轮流给出参考指示的说话人。在实验1中,说话人1和收件人参与者的视角一致,而说话人2和收件人参与者的视角不一致。在实验2中,说话双方的观点一致,但与对方的观点不同。结果表明,在实验1中,被试在解释名词指称时能够区分两个人的视角,但在实验2中没有发现差异。然而,对比实验1和实验2的结果发现,尽管说话者2的视角保持不变,但实验1的参与者在解读说话者2的话语时比实验2的参与者更以自我为中心。战略变革的模式与发言者1的解释是一致的。这表明参与者在某种程度上整合了两位演讲者的观点。基于他们的合作伙伴的受众设计策略,使用“代理接地”策略,或计算不同视角的概率权重,结果进一步讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Psychologica
Acta Psychologica PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
274
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychologica publishes original articles and extended reviews on selected books in any area of experimental psychology. The focus of the Journal is on empirical studies and evaluative review articles that increase the theoretical understanding of human capabilities.
期刊最新文献
The influence of e-commerce virtual streamer characteristics on consumers' purchase intention: Based on a hybrid SEM-ANN approach Attentional strategies and ancillary gestures in resisting unintentional synchronization during joint action Transitions of School-Family-Community assets profiles and their associations with adolescent positive development and adjustment Doing well by doing good: The role of entrepreneurial mindfulness, social capital, and moral obligation in social entrepreneurial intentions Associations of work- and personal-life-related techno-stressors with emotional exhaustion, sickness absenteeism, and turnover intentions in public administration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1