A study of selected linguistic components of involvement in interaction

Cegala, Donald J.

doi:10.1080/10570318909374309

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scores on the IIS have correlated significantly in predicted ways with several self-report measures, including self esteem, neuroticism, impulsiveness, communication apprehension and communication competence (Cegala, 1982a;Cegala et al, 1982) and observed conversational behaviors, such as face-saving strategies and conversational style (Cegala, 1981(Cegala, , 1988Redmon, Eifert & Gordon, 1983;Villaume & Cegala, 1988). Of particular relevance to the present study, Cegala et al (1982) examined the nonverbal behavior of high-and lowinvolved communicators.…”

Section: Research On Interaction Involvementmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Thus, it is likely that some stress was experienced by the couples. Finally, it may be that involvement is more strongly and consistently related to "molar" behaviors, such as conversational control and dominance (Cegala, 1981;1988;Cegala et al, in press;Villaume & Cegala, 1988) than to isolated, uninterpreted nonverbal behaviors, as the latter appear to be multifunctional and more ambiguous in meaning (see Dittmann, 1978).…”

Section: Communication Reportsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Further examination of nonverbal manifestations of interaction involvement

Cegala

Sillars

1989

Communication Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research On Interaction Involvementmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Communication Reportsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Further examination of nonverbal manifestations of interaction involvement

Cegala

Sillars

1989

Communication Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other analyses of transcripts have revealed diagnostic power for psychiatric disorders [12] and the ability to predict the process of bereavement [22]. The use of relational pronouns (e.g., we, us, our) can reflect degree of involvement with one's conversational partner and one's disposition [4].…”

Section: Textual Correlates Of Collaborative Skillmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback on Collaborative Skills in Remote Studio Design

Turner

Schober

2007

2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study reported here examines how feedback affects remote collaborative brainstorming and product design in a studio setting. 10 teams of 4 students at the Parsons School of Design met remotely via a chatroom interface for three 30-minute sessions to design a T-shirt. Team members who proposed ideas were rated as better collaborators, and team members who critiqued ideas without offering alternatives were rated as poor collaborators. This was also reflected in team members' word use, as measured by Pennebaker & Francis' Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count too; for example, team members who used more affect words were rated as poorer collaborators. A case study of one team suggests that the ideas proposed by team members rated as the best collaborators may be most likely to survive. Peer feedback can affect remote studio design discussion in ways comparable to what is found in other settings, despite task differences.

show abstract

“…Several researchers (e.g., Coker & Burgoon, 1987;Guerrero & Burgoon, 1996;Gumperz, 1982) have focused on the behavioral indicators of involvement (e.g., nonverbal behaviors, tone of voice), whereas Cegala (1981) measured involvement as a cognitive ability through self-reported surveys. Despite the differences among theories, it is clear that (1) involvement is a complex construct with multiple components (e.g., Cappella, 1983;Cegala, Savage, Brunner, & Conrad, 1982;Cegala, 1984Cegala, , 1989 and (2) the dedication of cognitive attention to one's partner and the interaction as a whole is an important component of involvement (Cegala, 1981).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical Cues of Interaction Involvement in Dyadic Instant Messaging Conversations

Nguyen¹,

Fussell²

2014

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore how people express and interpret lexical cues of interaction involvement in dyadic conversations via instant messaging (IM) in two studies. In Study 1, an experiment with 60 participants, we manipulated level of involvement in a conversation with a distraction task. We examined how participants' uses of verbal cues such as pronouns were associated with their involvement in text-only IM conversations. We found that use of personal pronouns, assent words, cognitive words, and definite articles were significant indicators of a participant's involvement. In Study 2, an online survey with 50 participants, we examined how two lexical cues of involvement, personal pronouns and assent words, were perceived and interpreted. We found that communicators using few personal pronouns and many assent words were evaluated as more involved in their conversations. Our results contribute to theoretical development in computer-mediated communication and have implications for design of technologies to better support text-based conversations.

show abstract

A study of selected linguistic components of involvement in interaction

Cited by 31 publications

References 23 publications

Further examination of nonverbal manifestations of interaction involvement

Further examination of nonverbal manifestations of interaction involvement

Feedback on Collaborative Skills in Remote Studio Design

Lexical Cues of Interaction Involvement in Dyadic Instant Messaging Conversations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About