Audience Design through Social Interaction during Group Discussion

This paper contrasts two accounts of audience design during multiparty communication: audience design as a strategic individual-level message adjustment or as a non-strategic interaction-level message adjustment. Using a non-interactive communication task, Experiment 1 showed that people distinguish between messages designed for oneself and messages designed for another person; consistent with strategic message design, messages designed for another person/s were longer (number of words) than those designed for oneself. However, audience size did not affect message length (messages designed for different sized audiences were similar in length). Using an interactive communication task Experiment 2 showed that as group size increased so too did communicative effort (number of words exchanged between interlocutors). Consistent with a non-strategic account, as group members were added more social interaction was necessary to coordinate the group's collective situation model. Experiment 3 validates and extends the production measures used in Experiment 1 and 2 using a comprehension task. Taken together, our results indicate that audience design arises as a non-strategic outcome of social interaction during group discussion.

[1]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others' Knowledge in Reference , 1991 .

[3]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  R. Gerrig,et al.  Speakers’ experiences and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees☆ , 2002 .

[5]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[6]  M. Pickering,et al.  What makes dialogues easy to understand? , 2011 .

[7]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Hearers and speech acts , 1982 .

[8]  Jon Oberlander,et al.  Foundations of Representation: Where Might Graphical Symbol Systems Come From? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  E. Ramsden.  Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[10]  J. T. Erichsen,et al.  Differential regulation of synaptic plasticity of the hippocampal and the hypothalamic inputs to the anterior thalamus , 2011, Hippocampus.

[11]  A. Bell.  Language style as audience design , 1984, Language in Society.

[12]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Understanding friends and strangers: The effects of audience design on message comprehension , 1989 .

[13]  Jean E. Fox Tree,et al.  Listening in on monologues and dialogues , 1999 .

[14]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[15]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 2015 .

[16]  Matthias Nückles,et al.  Information about a layperson's knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[17]  R. Krauss,et al.  Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: a preliminary study , 1964 .

[18]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Achieving Understanding in Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Multiparty Interactions , 2006 .

[20]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[21]  B. Keysar.  Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes , 2007 .

[22]  M. Pickering,et al.  The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers , 2011, Cognition.

[23]  S. Garrod,et al.  Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size , 2000, Psychological science.

[24]  Simon Garrod,et al.  The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[26]  N. McGlynn.  Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[27]  J. E. Tree,et al.  Overhearing Single and Multiple Perspectives , 2008 .

[28]  Susan Brennan,et al.  Partner-Specific Adaptation in Dialog , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[29]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction , 2004 .

[30]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework , 1989 .

[31]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Social psychological models of interpersonal communication , 1996 .

[32]  David E. Warren,et al.  Teasing apart tangrams: Testing hippocampal pattern separation with a collaborative referencing paradigm , 2012, Hippocampus.

[33]  Timothy M. Gann,et al.  Speaking from experience: audience design as expert performance , 2014 .

[34]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding by addressees and overhearers , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.