社会困境中的言语互动

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Rationality and Society Pub Date : 2022-05-25 DOI:10.1177/10434631221094555
Zoe Adams, A. Ludwiczak, D. Sharma, Magda Osman
{"title":"社会困境中的言语互动","authors":"Zoe Adams, A. Ludwiczak, D. Sharma, Magda Osman","doi":"10.1177/10434631221094555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study presents the first sociolinguistic examination of communication in a social dilemma. 90 participants (18 groups of 5) completed a modified public goods game with 2 rounds: an effort-based task and an unscripted online chat about the results. A linear regression shows that consensus-building language in the Round 1 chat affects cooperative behaviour in the Round 2 task. A qualitative analysis of 3 groups explores how participants use different recognisable styles of communication (registers) to strategically align with or disalign from one another (stancetaking). Each analysis is complemented with a quantitative visualisation of how (dis)alignment between participants unfolds in real-time. We found that successful groups employ registers associated with collective action, such as gameshow talk (‘ouch. £69 out of a possible £120’) to encourage, punish, and pledge allegiance to one another. Less successful groups use registers that risk evoking mistrust and reducing obligation, such as business talk (‘I approve’). We argue that a mixed methods approach to interaction and behaviour can reveal incremental shifts in consensus building that underpin quantitative outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47079,"journal":{"name":"Rationality and Society","volume":"34 1","pages":"334 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verbal interaction in a social dilemma\",\"authors\":\"Zoe Adams, A. Ludwiczak, D. Sharma, Magda Osman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10434631221094555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study presents the first sociolinguistic examination of communication in a social dilemma. 90 participants (18 groups of 5) completed a modified public goods game with 2 rounds: an effort-based task and an unscripted online chat about the results. A linear regression shows that consensus-building language in the Round 1 chat affects cooperative behaviour in the Round 2 task. A qualitative analysis of 3 groups explores how participants use different recognisable styles of communication (registers) to strategically align with or disalign from one another (stancetaking). Each analysis is complemented with a quantitative visualisation of how (dis)alignment between participants unfolds in real-time. We found that successful groups employ registers associated with collective action, such as gameshow talk (‘ouch. £69 out of a possible £120’) to encourage, punish, and pledge allegiance to one another. Less successful groups use registers that risk evoking mistrust and reducing obligation, such as business talk (‘I approve’). We argue that a mixed methods approach to interaction and behaviour can reveal incremental shifts in consensus building that underpin quantitative outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rationality and Society\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"334 - 367\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rationality and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631221094555\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationality and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631221094555","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究首次对处于社会困境中的交际进行了社会语言学考察。90名参与者(18组,每组5人)完成了一个修改后的公共产品游戏,分为两轮:一项基于努力的任务和一次关于结果的无脚本在线聊天。线性回归表明,第一轮聊天中建立共识的语言会影响第二轮任务中的合作行为。对3组进行的定性分析探讨了参与者如何使用不同的可识别沟通风格(语域)来战略性地相互一致或不一致(立场)。每一项分析都辅以参与者之间如何实时展开(不一致)的定量可视化。我们发现,成功的团体使用与集体行动相关的登记册,如游戏秀谈话(“大约120英镑中的69英镑”)来鼓励、惩罚和宣誓效忠。不太成功的团体使用可能引发不信任和减少义务的登记册,例如商业谈话(“我同意”)。我们认为,对互动和行为采取混合方法可以揭示建立共识的渐进变化,这是量化结果的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Verbal interaction in a social dilemma
This study presents the first sociolinguistic examination of communication in a social dilemma. 90 participants (18 groups of 5) completed a modified public goods game with 2 rounds: an effort-based task and an unscripted online chat about the results. A linear regression shows that consensus-building language in the Round 1 chat affects cooperative behaviour in the Round 2 task. A qualitative analysis of 3 groups explores how participants use different recognisable styles of communication (registers) to strategically align with or disalign from one another (stancetaking). Each analysis is complemented with a quantitative visualisation of how (dis)alignment between participants unfolds in real-time. We found that successful groups employ registers associated with collective action, such as gameshow talk (‘ouch. £69 out of a possible £120’) to encourage, punish, and pledge allegiance to one another. Less successful groups use registers that risk evoking mistrust and reducing obligation, such as business talk (‘I approve’). We argue that a mixed methods approach to interaction and behaviour can reveal incremental shifts in consensus building that underpin quantitative outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Rationality & Society focuses on the growing contributions of rational-action based theory, and the questions and controversies surrounding this growth. Why Choose Rationality and Society? The trend toward ever-greater specialization in many areas of intellectual life has lead to fragmentation that deprives scholars of the ability to communicate even in closely adjoining fields. The emergence of the rational action paradigm as the inter-lingua of the social sciences is a remarkable exception to this trend. It is the one paradigm that offers the promise of bringing greater theoretical unity across disciplines such as economics, sociology, political science, cognitive psychology, moral philosophy and law.
期刊最新文献
Does improved upward social mobility foster frustration and conflict? A large-scale online experiment testing Boudon’s model Effectiveness of technology for braille literacy education for children: a systematic review. Refined tastes, coarse tastes: Solving the stratification-of-goods enigma Explaining mobilization for revolts by private interests and kinship relations Graduated sanctioning, endogenous institutions and sustainable cooperation in common-pool resources: An experimental test
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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