A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon‐driven approach to communication

Interaction between people is a cornerstone of being human. Despite huge developments in languages and communicative skills, interaction often fails, which causes problems and costs in everyday life and work. An inability to conduct dialogue also produces conflicts between groups of people, states and religions. Therefore, there are good reasons to claim that miscommunication and failures in interaction are among the most serious problems in the world. Researchers from different fields – linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, brain research, philosophy – have tried to tackle this complex phenomenon. Their method-driven approaches enrich our understanding of the features of interaction in many ways. However, what is lacking is an understanding of the very essence of interaction, which needs a more holistic, phenomenon-driven approach. The aim of this paper is to show that the only way to reach this goal is multidisciplinarity, that is, using the results and methods of different fields of research. This is not an easy goal and task because the way of thinking and doing research varies greatly discipline-wise. A further obstacle is the researchers’ training, which, as a rule, focuses on the tradition of only one field of research. The Multidimensional Model of Interaction provides a good framework for a more holistic approach to interaction by viewing the complex phenomenon from different angles. The model includes various phases of the process of interaction, beginning with the choice of the topic by the speaker and ending with identification of the reference by the recipient, as well as the mental worlds of the interlocutors (knowledge, attitudes, values, emotional state etc.), recipient design (accommodation of speech) and external circumstances.Peer reviewe

Repair Avoidance: When Faithful Informational Exchanges Don't Matter That Much

AbstractCommon‐sense intuition suggests that, when people are engaged in informational exchanges, they communicate so as to be reasonably sure that they perform the exchanges faithfully. Over the years, we have found evidence suggesting that this intuition, which is woven into several influential theories of human communication, may be misleading. We first summarize this evidence and discuss its potential limitations. Then, we present a new study that addresses the potential limitations. A confederate instructed participants to "pick up the skask" from a tray containing six objects and move it to a specific location. Since skask is a non‐word invented by us, participants had to ask for clarification to perform the instruction faithfully. In contradiction with the intuition that people pursue faithfulness when engaged in informational exchanges, 29 of the 48 participants we tested performed the instruction without asking for clarification. We identified a possible cause for this behavior, which occurred more frequently when avoiding the clarification was unlikely to result in an overt consequence (an error in the execution of the instruction that could be noticed by the confederate or the experimenter). Other factors such as individual differences and the specific interpersonal dynamics of the experimental settings, if they played a role at all, did it to an extent that is unlikely to be comparable to that of the role played by overt consequences. Considered together, our various assessments of the extent to which people engage in faithful informational exchanges converge on a simple conclusion: Communicating faithfully is a substantially demanding task, and people often fail at it. We discuss the implications of this conclusion and speculate on its relevance for understanding the evolutionary past of human communication

Self-repair increases referential coordination

When interlocutors repeatedly describe referents to each other, they rapidly converge on referring expressions which become increasingly systematized and abstract as the interaction progresses. Previous experimental research suggests that interactive repair mechanisms in dialogue underpin convergence. However, this research has so far only focused on the role of other-initiated repair and has not examined whether self-initiated repair might also play a role. To investigate this question, we report the results from a computer-mediated maze task experiment. In this task, participants communicate with each other via an experimental chat tool, which selectively transforms participants’ private turn-revisions into public self-repairs that are made visible to the other participant. For example, if a participant, A, types “On the top square,” and then before sending, A revises the turn to “On the top row,” the server automatically detects the revision and transforms the private turn-revisions into a public self-repair, for example, “On the top square umm I meant row.” Participants who received these transformed turns used more abstract and systematized referring expressions, but performed worse at the task. We argue that this is due to the artificial self-repairs causing participants to put more effort into diagnosing and resolving the referential coordination problems they face in the task, yielding better grounded spatial semantics and consequently increased use of abstract referring expressions.</p

When and why do we pretend (not) to understand : an attempt to make a classification on the basis of meta-communicative statements

Согласно общим правилам коммуникации, собеседники должны честно вести разговор. Как известно, это далеко не всегда так. В статье рассматривается один тип отклонения от этой нормы – ситуации, в которых говорящий (не) делает вид, что (не) понимает. Понимание – ключевое понятие коммуникации, поскольку в общении между людьми – не всегда, но чаще всего – собеседники стремятся к взаимопониманию. Таким образом, в задачи реципиента входит идентификация моментов, в которых он не понимает, что говорящий хочет выразить. Если реципиент этого не делает, он нарушает общие постулаты коммуникации. При рассмотрении таких ситуаций можно различать три основных случая в зависимости от того, кто является агенсом речи, реципиентом речи, рассказчиком и экпериенсером (человеком, который не понимает). Любая из этих ситуаций имеет свои характеристики по отношению причин использования такого некооперативного приема общения. Чтобы исследовать это явление, в статье используется необычная методика. Выводы основываются на метаязыковых высказываниях свидетелей коммуникации. Анализ показал, что экспериенсер делает вид, что (не) понимает, в частности: 1) когда у него принципиальное отношение к данному средству общения (например, (не)знание иностранного языка); 2) когда (не)понимание облегчает его положение в данной ситуации (например, когда его обвиняют в чем-то); 3) когда (не)понимание сказанного освобождает его от дополнительной работы (например, когда просят совета); 4) когда (не)понимание происходит просто по инерции, от лени или неохоты экспериенсера. Рассказчик, со своей стороны, делает вид, что не понимает, чаще всего, когда он осуждает или критикует поведение экспериенсера.Peer reviewe

Improving video game conversations with trope-informed design

This paper examines tropes in video games pertaining to conversations between player characters and Non-Player Characters (NPCs). Drawing from the fields of pragmatics and Conversation Analysis we show how these tropes differ from real, face-to-face conversations. We demonstrate how politeness theory (how to avoid unsociable, face-threatening behaviour) can help us understand when and why conversations with NPCs disrupt player immersion. Based on these insights we propose alternative designs to improve immersion. We call this approach Trope-Informed Design: tropes are tools that can make or break a player’s experience. Considering how and when to perpetuate, subvert, or transcend tropes can help guide designers in improving their game mechanics

Improving video game conversations with trope-informed design

This paper examines tropes in video games pertaining to conversations between player characters and Non-Player Characters (NPCs). Drawing from the fields of pragmatics and Conversation Analysis we show how these tropes differ from real, face-to-face conversations. We demonstrate how politeness theory (how to avoid unsociable, face-threatening behaviour) can help us understand when and why conversations with NPCs disrupt player immersion. Based on these insights we propose alternative designs to improve immersion. We call this approach ‘Trope-Informed Design’: tropes are tools that can make or break a player’s experience. Considering how and when to perpetuate, subvert or transcend tropes can help guide designers in improving their game mechanics

Describing Faces for Identification: Getting the Message, But Not The Picture

Although humans rely on faces and language for social communication, the role of language in communicating about faces is poorly understood. Describing faces and identifying faces from verbal descriptions are important tasks in social and criminal justice settings. Prior research indicates that people have difficulty relaying face identity to others via verbal description, however little is known about the process, correlates, or content of communication about faces (hereafter ‘face communication’). In Chapter Two, I investigated face communication accuracy and its relationship with an individual’s perceptual face skill. I also examined the efficacy of a brief training intervention for improving face description ability. I found that individuals could complete face communication tasks with above chance levels of accuracy, in both interactive and non-interactive conditions, and that abilities in describing faces and using face descriptions for identification were related to an individual’s perceptual face skill. However, training was not effective for improving face description ability. In Chapter Three, I investigated qualitative attributes of face descriptions. I found no evidence of qualitative differences in face descriptions as a function of the describer’s perceptual skill with faces, the identification utility of descriptions, or the describer’s familiarity with the face. In Chapters Two and Three, the reliability of measures may have limited the ability to detect relationships between face communication accuracy and potential correlates of performance. Consequently, in Chapter Four, I examined face communication accuracy when using constrained face descriptions, derived using a rating scale, and the relationship between the identification utility of such descriptions and their reliability (test-retest and multi-rater). I found that constrained face descriptions were less useful for identification than free descriptions and the reliability of a description was unrelated to its identification utility. Together, findings in this thesis indicate that face communication is very challenging – both for individuals undertaking the task, and for researchers seeking to measure performance reliably. Given the mechanisms contributing to variance in face communication accuracy remain largely elusive, legal stakeholders would be wise to use caution when relying on evidence involving face description

Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

Recent research indicates that interpersonal communication is noisy, and that people exhibit considerable insensitivity to problems in communication. Using a dyadic referential communica- tion task, the goal of which is accurate information transfer, this study examined the extent to which interlocutors are sensitive to problems in communication and use other-initiated repairs (OIRs) to address them. Participants were randomly assigned to dyads (N = 88 participants, or 44 dyads) and tried to communicate a series of recurring abstract geometric shapes to a partner across a text–chat interface. Participants alternated between directing (describing shapes) and matching (interpreting shape descriptions) roles across 72 trials of the task. Replicating prior research, over repeated social interactions communication success improved and the shape descriptions became increasingly efficient. In addition, confidence in having successfully communicated the different shapes increased over trials. Importantly, matchers were less confident on trials in which commu- nication was unsuccessful, communication success was lower on trials that contained an OIR com- pared to those that did not contain an OIR, and OIR trials were associated with lower Director Confidence. This pattern of results demonstrates that (a) interlocutors exhibit (a degree of) sensi- tivity to problems in communication, (b) they appropriately use OIRs to address problems in communication, and (c) OIRs signal problems in communication

Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

Recent research indicates that interpersonal communication is noisy, and that people exhibit considerable insensitivity to problems in communication. Using a dyadic referential communica- tion task, the goal of which is accurate information transfer, this study examined the extent to which interlocutors are sensitive to problems in communication and use other-initiated repairs (OIRs) to address them. Participants were randomly assigned to dyads (N = 88 participants, or 44 dyads) and tried to communicate a series of recurring abstract geometric shapes to a partner across a text–chat interface. Participants alternated between directing (describing shapes) and matching (interpreting shape descriptions) roles across 72 trials of the task. Replicating prior research, over repeated social interactions communication success improved and the shape descriptions became increasingly efficient. In addition, confidence in having successfully communicated the different shapes increased over trials. Importantly, matchers were less confident on trials in which commu- nication was unsuccessful, communication success was lower on trials that contained an OIR com- pared to those that did not contain an OIR, and OIR trials were associated with lower Director Confidence. This pattern of results demonstrates that (a) interlocutors exhibit (a degree of) sensi- tivity to problems in communication, (b) they appropriately use OIRs to address problems in communication, and (c) OIRs signal problems in communication

Are people sensitive to problems in communication?

Recent research indicates that interpersonal communication is noisy, and that people exhibit considerable insensitivity to problems in communication. Using a dyadic referential communication task, the goal of which is accurate information transfer, this study examined the extent to which interlocutors are sensitive to problems in communication and use other‐initiated repairs (OIRs) to address them. Participants were randomly assigned to dyads (N = 88 participants, or 44 dyads) and tried to communicate a series of recurring abstract geometric shapes to a partner across a text–chat interface. Participants alternated between directing (describing shapes) and matching (interpreting shape descriptions) roles across 72 trials of the task. Replicating prior research, over repeated social interactions communication success improved and the shape descriptions became increasingly efficient. In addition, confidence in having successfully communicated the different shapes increased over trials. Importantly, matchers were less confident on trials in which communication was unsuccessful, communication success was lower on trials that contained an OIR compared to those that did not contain an OIR, and OIR trials were associated with lower Director Confidence. This pattern of results demonstrates that (a) interlocutors exhibit (a degree of) sensitivity to problems in communication, (b) they appropriately use OIRs to address problems in communication, and (c) OIRs signal problems in communication