Conversational structures affecting auditory likeability

Three-person telephone conferences of unacquainted people are conducted by means of pre-defined scenarios providing individual information and goals. Interlocutors rate the likeability of each other after a training session as well as after the actual conference. The recordings of the conferences are manually annotated concerning speaker’s verbal contribution, pauses, and back-channels. Regression analysis reveals likeability ratings after the conference to be dominated by the ratings before the conversation, but simple parameters like number of turns also contribute significantly to a descriptive model. The regression model for ratings averaged for both interlocutors provide a similar fit as the one for pair-wise ratings. Exchanging of the manually obtained parameters by automatically estimated values still results in significant regressions, indicating facilitation for future research.

[1]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The Chameleon Effect as Social Glue: Evidence for the Evolutionary Significance of Nonconscious Mimicry , 2003 .

[2]  Sebastian Möller,et al.  Predicting the quality and usability of spoken dialogue services , 2008, Speech Commun..

[3]  M. J. Harris,et al.  You never get a second chance to make a first impression: Behavioral consequences of first impressions. , 2008 .

[4]  R. Street.  Participant–Observer Differences in Speech Evaluation , 1985 .

[5]  S. Goldband.  Imposed latencies, interruptions and dyadic interaction: Physiological response and interpersonal attraction , 1981 .

[6]  Alexander Raake,et al.  Conversation Analysis of Multi-Party Conferencing and Its Relation to Perceived Quality , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[7]  Jody Kreiman,et al.  Foundations of Voice Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Voice Production and Perception , 2011 .

[8]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Acoustic and Prosodic Correlates of Social Behavior , 2011, INTERSPEECH.

[9]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Models of Non-Independence in Dyadic Research , 1996 .

[10]  Antonio Origlia,et al.  From Nonverbal Cues to Perception: Personality and Social Attractiveness , 2011, COST 2102 Training School.

[11]  Antje Schweitzer,et al.  Convergence of articulation rate in spontaneous speech , 2013, INTERSPEECH.

[12]  Miller S. Puckette,et al.  The Theory and Technique of Electronic Music , 2007 .

[13]  David R. Brandt,et al.  On Linking Social Performance with Social Competence: Some Relations between Communicative Style and Attributions of Interpersonal Attractiveness and Effectiveness. , 1979 .

[14]  The effect of apprehensive behavior on communication apprehension and interpersonal attraction , 1994 .

[15]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  The Effects of Interview Structure on Recruiting Outcomes , 1998 .

[16]  Ibon Saratxaga,et al.  Modified LTSE-VAD Algorithm for Applications Requiring Reduced Silence Frame Misclassification , 2010, LREC.

[17]  A. Mulac,et al.  Lexical diversity and magnitude of convergent versus divergent style shifting-: Perceptual and evaluative consequences , 1988 .

[18]  A. Pentland,et al.  Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  Matthias Geier,et al.  Listening and Conversational Quality of Spatial Audio Conferencing , 2010 .

[20]  S. Renals,et al.  Modelling Participant Affect in Meetings with Turn-Taking Features , 2013 .

[21]  R. Norton,et al.  Communicator Style as an Effect Determinant of Attraction , 1977 .

[22]  METHODS FOR SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION OF TRANSMISSION QUALITY Summary , 2022 .

[23]  Rick H. Hoyle,et al.  Interpersonal attraction and descriptions of the traits of others: Ideal similarity, self similarity, and liking , 1990 .