Keeping Track of Speaker's Perspective: The Role of Social Identity

A long and narrow piece of wood is “a bat,” “a stick,” “a club,” or “firewood.” In fact, anything can be described from multiple perspectives, each suggesting a different conceptualization. People keep track of how speakers conceptualize things and expect them to describe them similarly in the future. This article demonstrates that these expectations are partly based on the speaker's social identity. Participants watched speakers describe objects. In Experiment 1, people expected a female speaker to use another female's, rather than a male's, term. In Experiment 2, participants misattributed a term to a speaker more within a gender category than between genders, demonstrating that such expectations stem from source monitoring. Experiment 3 showed that source confusion is not due only to similarity among individuals, but also to their social category: Salient gender exacerbated gender-based misattributions. Together, these results show that people keep track of speakers' conceptualizations partly via their social identity.

[1]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Coordination of knowledge in communication: effects of speakers' assumptions about what others know. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[3]  B. Keysar,et al.  You said it before and you'll say it again: expectations of consistency in communication. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  D. Levin,et al.  Categorical perception occurs in newly learned faces, other-race faces, and inverted faces , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  H. H. Clark,et al.  References in Conversation Between Experts and Novices , 1987 .

[6]  A. V. Knippenberg,et al.  Social categorization as a function of priming , 1995 .

[7]  J. B. Ruscher,et al.  Forming Shared Impressions Through Conversation: An Adaptation of the Continuum Model , 1996 .

[8]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Classification and quantitative judgement. , 1963, British journal of psychology.

[9]  R. Marsh,et al.  An alternative conceptualization to memory "Strength" in reality monitoring , 1999 .

[10]  Joseph G. Weber,et al.  Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization versus individuation. , 1995 .

[11]  M. Blanz Accessibility and fit as determinants of the salience of social categorizations , 1999 .

[12]  S. Bem The measurement of psychological androgyny. , 1974, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[13]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. , 1978 .

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

[15]  R. Brown How shall a thing be called. , 1958, Psychological review.

[16]  A. Heilbrun,et al.  Measurement of Masculine and Feminine Sex Role Identities as Independent Dimensions. , 1976 .

[17]  Robert L. Goldstone Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  F. Lorenzi-Cioldi They all look alike, but so do we … sometimes: Perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity as a function of sex and context , 1993 .

[19]  R. Gerrig,et al.  The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production , 2005, Cognition.

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

[21]  Jason L Hicks,et al.  The role of recollection and partial information in source monitoring. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  STEREOTYPE RELIANCE IN SOURCE MONITORING: AGE DIFFERENCES AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST CORRELATES , 1999 .

[23]  L. Hedges,et al.  Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. , 1991, Psychological review.

[24]  D. Barr,et al.  Anchoring Comprehension in Linguistic Precedents , 2002 .

[25]  K C Klauer,et al.  Unraveling social categorization in the "who said what?" paradigm. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  S. Brennan,et al.  When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions , 2003 .

[27]  L. Arcuri Three patterns of social categorization in attribution memory , 1982 .

[28]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Source monitoring. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Cognitive Bases of Stereotyping , 1982 .

[30]  The ecological validity of the "who said what?" technique: an examination of the role of self-involvement, cognitive interference and acquaintanceship. , 2005, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[31]  Charles Stangor,et al.  Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. , 1992 .

[32]  D. Levin Race as a visual feature: using visual search and perceptual discrimination tasks to understand face categories and the cross-race recognition deficit. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. , 1987 .

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

[35]  D. Barr,et al.  Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis , 2007 .

[36]  J. Hicks,et al.  The effect of general knowledge on source memory and decision processes , 2003 .

[37]  A P Shimamura,et al.  On the recollection of specific- and partial-source information. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  S. Bem,et al.  If you are gender schematic, all members of the opposite sex look alike. , 1985 .

[39]  Brent A. Olde,et al.  Who said what? Source memory for narrator and character agents in literary short stories. , 1999 .