We examined the effects of hedges and the discourse marker like on how people recalled specific details about precise quantities in spontaneous speech. We found that listeners treated hedged information differently from like-marked information, although both are thought to be indicators of uncertainty or vagueness. In addition, hedges had different effects depending on whether speakers were (1) retelling conversations to another person or (2) answering questions about material they had heard. When retelling to another person, listeners were more likely to report information that was either unmarked or marked with a like than hedged information (Experiment 1). Yet when answering questions by themselves, hedges enhanced memory for details, in comparison with likes (Experiment 2). Hedges appear to provide pragmatic cues about what information is reliable enough to repeat in a conversational context. But although hedged information may be left out, it is not forgotten.

Abstract-Personality can be assessed with standardized inventory questions with scaled responses such as "How extraverted is this character?" or with open-ended questions assessing first impressions, such as "What personality does this character convey?" Little is known about how the two methods compare to each other, and even less is known about their use in the personality assessment of virtual agents. We tested what personality virtual agents conveyed through gesture alone when the agents were programmed to display introversion versus extraversion (Experiment 1) and high versus low emotional stability (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, both measures indicated participants perceived the extraverted agent as extraverted, but the open-question technique highlighted the perception of both agents as highly agreeable whereas the inventory indicated that the extraverted agents were also perceived as more open to new experiences. In Experiment 2, participants perceived agents expressing high versus low emotional stability differently depending on assessment style. With inventory questions, the agents differed on both emotional stability and agreeableness. With the open-ended question, participants perceived the high stability agent as extraverted and the low stability agent as disagreeable. Inventory and open-ended questions provide different information about what personality virtual agents convey and both may be useful in agent development.

No abstract

The Map Task (Anderson et al., 1991) and Tangram Task (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986) are traditional referential communication tasks that are used in psycholinguistics research to demonstrate how conversational partners mutually agree on descriptions (or referring expressions) for landmarks or unusual target objects. These highly-controlled, laboratory-based tasks take place under conditions that are relatively unusual for naturally-occurring conversations (Speed, Wnuk, & Majid, 2016). In this study, we used the Artwalk Task (Liu, Fox Tree, & Walker, 2016) – a real world-situated blend of the Map Task and Tangram Task – to demonstrate that the process of negotiating referring expressions ‘in the wild’ is similar to the process that takes place in a laboratory. In Artwalk, participant pairs communicated via a Skype-to-mobile phone connection. One participant guided the other through a small downtown area with the goal of identifying public art objects, finding objects twice during two rounds. In addition to replicating laboratory results, we also found that acquaintanceship and extraversion influenced the number of unique descriptors used by dyads in this task. In Round 1, introverts in stranger dyads used fewer descriptors but introverts in friend dyads were indistinguishable from extraverts. The influence of extraversion declined by Round 2. This study suggests that referent negotiation observed in labs is generalizable but that naturalistic communication is subject to social and personality factors that may not be as influential in laboratory conditions.