Pub Date : 2023-03-16DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197682
DERYA ÇOKAL, R. Filik, P. Sturt, Massimo Poesio
ABSTRACT Corpus evidence suggests that in contexts in which the presence of multiple antecedents might favor plural reference, the disadvantage observed for singular reference may disappear if the potential antecedents are combined in a group-like plural entity. We examined the relative salience of antecedents in conditions where the context either made a group interpretation available (i.e., mereological entity) (e.g., The engineer hooked up the engine to the boxcar …, where group = train), or not (e.g., The engineer detached the engine from the boxcar …). Results from three experiments in which participants were asked to identify referents for singular versus plural pronouns (Experiment 1), to confirm the referents of pronouns in a sentence completion task (Experiment 2), and to provide paraphrases for given texts (Experiment 3), collectively provided evidence that the creation of a group makes that entity (i) a possible referent for singular anaphoric reference and (ii) more salient than its constituents.
{"title":"Anaphoric reference to mereological entities","authors":"DERYA ÇOKAL, R. Filik, P. Sturt, Massimo Poesio","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197682","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Corpus evidence suggests that in contexts in which the presence of multiple antecedents might favor plural reference, the disadvantage observed for singular reference may disappear if the potential antecedents are combined in a group-like plural entity. We examined the relative salience of antecedents in conditions where the context either made a group interpretation available (i.e., mereological entity) (e.g., The engineer hooked up the engine to the boxcar …, where group = train), or not (e.g., The engineer detached the engine from the boxcar …). Results from three experiments in which participants were asked to identify referents for singular versus plural pronouns (Experiment 1), to confirm the referents of pronouns in a sentence completion task (Experiment 2), and to provide paraphrases for given texts (Experiment 3), collectively provided evidence that the creation of a group makes that entity (i) a possible referent for singular anaphoric reference and (ii) more salient than its constituents.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"202 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43522233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-16DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2196915
Edward A. Cranford, Jarrod Moss
ABSTRACT When a situation could lead to multiple mutually exclusive consequences, recent research shows that people automatically generate multiple predictive inferences in memory. Several theoretical mechanisms have been proposed to account for the generation of predictive inferences. One hypothesis is that inferences are minimally encoded, represented only by a set of semantic features related to the inferences or by a more general concept that covers the consequences of both inferences. A second hypothesis is that activation of the inferences is delayed because it is initially weak and requires time to build. In three experiments designed to examine these two hypotheses, participants read narrative passages that supported mutually exclusive consequences. Predictive inferences were not detected in working memory using a word-naming task, even at longer delays, but were detected using a short-term contradiction paradigm and, therefore, available as part of the discourse representation. The combined results indicate that predictive inferences are minimally encoded rather than their activation being delayed.
{"title":"Representation of predictive inferences when multiple alternatives are available","authors":"Edward A. Cranford, Jarrod Moss","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2196915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2196915","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When a situation could lead to multiple mutually exclusive consequences, recent research shows that people automatically generate multiple predictive inferences in memory. Several theoretical mechanisms have been proposed to account for the generation of predictive inferences. One hypothesis is that inferences are minimally encoded, represented only by a set of semantic features related to the inferences or by a more general concept that covers the consequences of both inferences. A second hypothesis is that activation of the inferences is delayed because it is initially weak and requires time to build. In three experiments designed to examine these two hypotheses, participants read narrative passages that supported mutually exclusive consequences. Predictive inferences were not detected in working memory using a word-naming task, even at longer delays, but were detected using a short-term contradiction paradigm and, therefore, available as part of the discourse representation. The combined results indicate that predictive inferences are minimally encoded rather than their activation being delayed.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"181 - 201"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42212526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-16DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2185406
Raffaele Dicataldo, Ughetta Moscardino, I. Mammarella, Maja Roch
ABSTRACT Listening narrative comprehension is a complex process that requires the processing of explicit (i.e., information presented in the text) and implicit information (i.e., information inferable from the text) and involves several linguistic and cognitive skills. However, the specific role of these skills in children’s comprehension remains unclear. This study investigated the contribution of maternal education, receptive vocabulary, executive functions (working memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility), and Theory of Mind to the comprehension of explicit and implicit information during a listening comprehension task among 100 Italian native speakers attending first grade (M age = 6.5 years, SD = 3.7). Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that maternal education and children’s verbal skills were positively associated with comprehension of explicit information, whereas cognitive flexibility and Theory of Mind provided an independent contribution to the comprehension of implicit information over and above maternal education and verbal skills. Prereaders not only process different types of information during a listening comprehension task and engage in integrative processes to go beyond the information presented in the text but also rely on different linguistic and cognitive skills in the comprehension of both explicit and implicit information.
{"title":"Comprehension of explicit and implicit information in prereaders: the role of maternal education, receptive vocabulary, executive functions, and theory of mind","authors":"Raffaele Dicataldo, Ughetta Moscardino, I. Mammarella, Maja Roch","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2185406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2185406","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Listening narrative comprehension is a complex process that requires the processing of explicit (i.e., information presented in the text) and implicit information (i.e., information inferable from the text) and involves several linguistic and cognitive skills. However, the specific role of these skills in children’s comprehension remains unclear. This study investigated the contribution of maternal education, receptive vocabulary, executive functions (working memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility), and Theory of Mind to the comprehension of explicit and implicit information during a listening comprehension task among 100 Italian native speakers attending first grade (M age = 6.5 years, SD = 3.7). Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that maternal education and children’s verbal skills were positively associated with comprehension of explicit information, whereas cognitive flexibility and Theory of Mind provided an independent contribution to the comprehension of implicit information over and above maternal education and verbal skills. Prereaders not only process different types of information during a listening comprehension task and engage in integrative processes to go beyond the information presented in the text but also rely on different linguistic and cognitive skills in the comprehension of both explicit and implicit information.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"163 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43887913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-07DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2172299
Christian C. Steciuch, Keith K. Millis, Ryan D. Kopatich
ABSTRACT A large body of research has outlined how mental models are formed by comprehending texts, yet relatively less work has been conducted in the field of comprehending artworks. Trans-symbolic comprehension (TSC) processes have been theorized to partially account for how mental models are formed across media. The current study tested whether participants use these processes similarly across reading stories and viewing paintings. The current study also tested whether the frequencies of TSC processes predict the aesthetic responses of understanding, interest, and pleasure. Participants typed out their thoughts while viewing paintings and reading texts. The think-aloud protocols were then parsed and coded for TSC processes. Results indicated similarities in TSC processes across both texts and paintings; however, the association between the TSC processes and aesthetic responses were greater for the texts than for the paintings. Overall, the results provide support for the TSC framework.
{"title":"Is viewing a painting like reading a story?: Trans-symbolic comprehension processes and aesthetic responses across two media","authors":"Christian C. Steciuch, Keith K. Millis, Ryan D. Kopatich","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2172299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2172299","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A large body of research has outlined how mental models are formed by comprehending texts, yet relatively less work has been conducted in the field of comprehending artworks. Trans-symbolic comprehension (TSC) processes have been theorized to partially account for how mental models are formed across media. The current study tested whether participants use these processes similarly across reading stories and viewing paintings. The current study also tested whether the frequencies of TSC processes predict the aesthetic responses of understanding, interest, and pleasure. Participants typed out their thoughts while viewing paintings and reading texts. The think-aloud protocols were then parsed and coded for TSC processes. Results indicated similarities in TSC processes across both texts and paintings; however, the association between the TSC processes and aesthetic responses were greater for the texts than for the paintings. Overall, the results provide support for the TSC framework.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"97 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48912832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-07DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185400
Johanna K. Kaakinen, Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler
ABSTRACT The Discourse Processes editorial team has decided to adopt the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines is to help researchers, journal editors, and reviewers adopt practices that support transparency, openness, and reproducibility of research. The guidelines include eight transparency standards regarding (1) citations of data and materials, (2) data sharing, (3) analytic methods, (4) research materials, (5) design and analysis methods, (6) preregistration of the study, (7) preregistration of the analysis plan, and (8) replication studies. We describe each standard, how they are implemented, and what it means from the perspective of an author who wishes to publish their work in Discourse Processes.
{"title":"Discourse Processes Adopts the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines","authors":"Johanna K. Kaakinen, Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185400","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Discourse Processes editorial team has decided to adopt the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines is to help researchers, journal editors, and reviewers adopt practices that support transparency, openness, and reproducibility of research. The guidelines include eight transparency standards regarding (1) citations of data and materials, (2) data sharing, (3) analytic methods, (4) research materials, (5) design and analysis methods, (6) preregistration of the study, (7) preregistration of the analysis plan, and (8) replication studies. We describe each standard, how they are implemented, and what it means from the perspective of an author who wishes to publish their work in Discourse Processes.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"93 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44249764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-06DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2172300
Johanna Abendroth, Tobias Richter
ABSTRACT Readers often prioritize processing and comprehension of information perceived as relevant to a particular intention. Using a repeated-measurement study, we investigated how readers’ prior beliefs and external reading perspectives influence processing and comprehension of belief-relevant texts on two socioscientific controversies. University students read belief-relevant texts from a belief-consistent perspective in one experimental session and from a belief-inconsistent reading perspective in another. Eye tracking was used to measure immediate and delayed processing and a sentence verification task was used to measure comprehension. Results revealed longer first-pass reading times for belief-inconsistent claims compared to belief-consistent claims, especially in the belief-inconsistent reading perspective. Longer lookbacks on belief-consistent claims were found in the belief-consistent reading perspective but similar lookback times for both types of claims in the belief-inconsistent reading perspective. We further found better comprehension for belief-consistent information in the belief-consistent reading perspective but balanced comprehension levels in the belief-inconsistent reading perspective.
{"title":"Reading perspectives moderate text-belief consistency effects in eye movements and comprehension","authors":"Johanna Abendroth, Tobias Richter","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2172300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2172300","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Readers often prioritize processing and comprehension of information perceived as relevant to a particular intention. Using a repeated-measurement study, we investigated how readers’ prior beliefs and external reading perspectives influence processing and comprehension of belief-relevant texts on two socioscientific controversies. University students read belief-relevant texts from a belief-consistent perspective in one experimental session and from a belief-inconsistent reading perspective in another. Eye tracking was used to measure immediate and delayed processing and a sentence verification task was used to measure comprehension. Results revealed longer first-pass reading times for belief-inconsistent claims compared to belief-consistent claims, especially in the belief-inconsistent reading perspective. Longer lookbacks on belief-consistent claims were found in the belief-consistent reading perspective but similar lookback times for both types of claims in the belief-inconsistent reading perspective. We further found better comprehension for belief-consistent information in the belief-consistent reading perspective but balanced comprehension levels in the belief-inconsistent reading perspective.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"119 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47379413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2165027
L. Keevallik, E. Hofstetter, A. Weatherall, S. Wiggins
ABSTRACT This study investigates the practice of “sounding for others,” wherein one person vocalizes to enact someone else’s putatively ongoing bodily sensation. We argue that it constitutes a collaborative way of performing sensorial experiences. Examples include producing cries with others’ strain or pain and parents sounding an mmm of gustatory pleasure on their infant’s behalf. Vocal sounds, their loudness, and duration are specifically deployed for instructing bodily experiences during novices’ real-time performance of various activities, such as tasting food for the first time or straining during a Pilates exercise. Vocalizations that are indexically tied to the body provide immediate displays of understanding and empathy that may be explicated further through lexicon. The existence of this practice challenges the conceptualization of communication as a transfer of information from an individual agent – even regarding assumedly individual body sensations – instead providing evidence of the joint nature of action and supporting dialogic theories of communication, including when language-marginal vocalizations are used.
{"title":"Sounding others’ sensations in interaction","authors":"L. Keevallik, E. Hofstetter, A. Weatherall, S. Wiggins","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2023.2165027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2165027","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study investigates the practice of “sounding for others,” wherein one person vocalizes to enact someone else’s putatively ongoing bodily sensation. We argue that it constitutes a collaborative way of performing sensorial experiences. Examples include producing cries with others’ strain or pain and parents sounding an mmm of gustatory pleasure on their infant’s behalf. Vocal sounds, their loudness, and duration are specifically deployed for instructing bodily experiences during novices’ real-time performance of various activities, such as tasting food for the first time or straining during a Pilates exercise. Vocalizations that are indexically tied to the body provide immediate displays of understanding and empathy that may be explicated further through lexicon. The existence of this practice challenges the conceptualization of communication as a transfer of information from an individual agent – even regarding assumedly individual body sensations – instead providing evidence of the joint nature of action and supporting dialogic theories of communication, including when language-marginal vocalizations are used.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"73 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46861718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2022.2159741
Hye Yeon Lee, Alexandra List
ABSTRACT This study examined the role of relevance determinations within the context of undergraduates’ multiple text reading and writing. In this study, undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (i.e., to compose a research report about either the causes of or the solutions to the urban housing crisis), using a library of 12 digital texts (six more relevant and six less relevant to students’ assigned task condition). Guided by the Multiple Documents Task-Based Relevance Assessment and Content Extraction (MD-TRACE) model, we identified the key features that students included in their task models, used log data to profile students’ text selection justifications and navigation, and categorized students’ writing as task-relevant or not. As such, we found students’ relevance determinations to play a key role in forming task models prior to text access, selecting and navigating texts during multiple text use, and composing a task product after accessing multiple texts. While we did not find students’ initial task models to be associated with their patterns of text selection justifications or navigation nor with writing performance, we did find differences in writing performance across students belonging to different text selection justification and navigation profiles. Implications for theory and research on learning from multiple texts are discussed.
{"title":"The role of relevance determinations in multiple text reading and writing: an investigation of the MD-TRACE","authors":"Hye Yeon Lee, Alexandra List","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2022.2159741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2159741","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examined the role of relevance determinations within the context of undergraduates’ multiple text reading and writing. In this study, undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (i.e., to compose a research report about either the causes of or the solutions to the urban housing crisis), using a library of 12 digital texts (six more relevant and six less relevant to students’ assigned task condition). Guided by the Multiple Documents Task-Based Relevance Assessment and Content Extraction (MD-TRACE) model, we identified the key features that students included in their task models, used log data to profile students’ text selection justifications and navigation, and categorized students’ writing as task-relevant or not. As such, we found students’ relevance determinations to play a key role in forming task models prior to text access, selecting and navigating texts during multiple text use, and composing a task product after accessing multiple texts. While we did not find students’ initial task models to be associated with their patterns of text selection justifications or navigation nor with writing performance, we did find differences in writing performance across students belonging to different text selection justification and navigation profiles. Implications for theory and research on learning from multiple texts are discussed.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"112 23","pages":"42 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41264712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01Epub Date: 2023-03-27DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185408
Maverick E Smith, Christopher A Kurby, Heather R Bailey
We segment what we read into meaningful events, each separated by a discrete boundary. How does event segmentation during encoding relate to the structure of story information in long-term memory? To evaluate this question, participants read stories of fictional historical events and then engaged in a post-reading verb arrangement task. In this task, participants saw verbs from each of the events placed randomly on a computer screen, and then they arranged the verbs into groups onscreen based on their understanding of the story. Participants who successfully comprehended the story placed verbs from the same event closer to each other than verbs from different events, even after controlling for orthographic, text-based, semantic, and situational overlap between verbs. Thus, how people structure story information into separate events during online comprehension is associated with how that information is stored in memory. Specifically, story information within an event is bound together in memory more so than information between events.
{"title":"Events shape long-term memory for story information.","authors":"Maverick E Smith, Christopher A Kurby, Heather R Bailey","doi":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185408","DOIUrl":"10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185408","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We segment what we read into meaningful events, each separated by a discrete boundary. How does event segmentation during encoding relate to the structure of story information in long-term memory? To evaluate this question, participants read stories of fictional historical events and then engaged in a post-reading verb arrangement task. In this task, participants saw verbs from each of the events placed randomly on a computer screen, and then they arranged the verbs into groups onscreen based on their understanding of the story. Participants who successfully comprehended the story placed verbs from the same event closer to each other than verbs from different events, even after controlling for orthographic, text-based, semantic, and situational overlap between verbs. Thus, how people structure story information into separate events during online comprehension is associated with how that information is stored in memory. Specifically, story information within an event is bound together in memory more so than information between events.</p>","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 2","pages":"141-161"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10343716/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9833709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-12DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2022.2152552
Andrew J. Guydish, J. E. Fox Tree
ABSTRACT How do people determine whether a conversation is good or bad? Do conversational phenomena (reaching common ground, striving to contribute equally, successful conversational closings) influence judgments of conversation quality and recall of conversations? We tested whether individuals reading previously transcribed conversations considered psycholinguistic characteristics in their assessments of whether the conversations were good or bad. Additionally, we tested whether these assessments influenced how the conversations were remembered. Well-formed interactions (balanced, grounded, or with well-structured closings) were rated as better than ill-formed counterparts (not balanced, not well grounded, or with poorly structured closings). When recalling the best interaction they saw, participants chose a well-formed conversation about 80% of the time. When recalling the worst interaction they saw, they chose an ill-formed conversation about 90% of the time. Balance information was important to both judgments. Participants recognized well-balanced conversations more accurately and were also faster to recognize well-balanced conversations. In contrast, participants recognized ill-formed grounding better, although it took more time to do so. Well-formed and ill-formed closings were recognized to a similar degree, but improperly structured closings were recognized more quickly. These findings support the hypothesis that common ground, contribution balance, and conversational closings influence both perception of conversational quality and memory for previously transcribed conversations.
{"title":"In Pursuit of a Good Conversation: How Contribution Balance, Common Ground, and Conversational Closings Influence Conversation Assessment and Conversational Memory","authors":"Andrew J. Guydish, J. E. Fox Tree","doi":"10.1080/0163853X.2022.2152552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2152552","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How do people determine whether a conversation is good or bad? Do conversational phenomena (reaching common ground, striving to contribute equally, successful conversational closings) influence judgments of conversation quality and recall of conversations? We tested whether individuals reading previously transcribed conversations considered psycholinguistic characteristics in their assessments of whether the conversations were good or bad. Additionally, we tested whether these assessments influenced how the conversations were remembered. Well-formed interactions (balanced, grounded, or with well-structured closings) were rated as better than ill-formed counterparts (not balanced, not well grounded, or with poorly structured closings). When recalling the best interaction they saw, participants chose a well-formed conversation about 80% of the time. When recalling the worst interaction they saw, they chose an ill-formed conversation about 90% of the time. Balance information was important to both judgments. Participants recognized well-balanced conversations more accurately and were also faster to recognize well-balanced conversations. In contrast, participants recognized ill-formed grounding better, although it took more time to do so. Well-formed and ill-formed closings were recognized to a similar degree, but improperly structured closings were recognized more quickly. These findings support the hypothesis that common ground, contribution balance, and conversational closings influence both perception of conversational quality and memory for previously transcribed conversations.","PeriodicalId":11316,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Processes","volume":"60 1","pages":"18 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44665032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：