Are People Sensitive to Problems in Communication?

Micklos, Ashley; Walker, Bradley; Fay, Nicolas

doi:10.1111/cogs.12816

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Before we discuss the general relevance of the line of research from which the current study originates, we note that this study serendipitously acquired specific relevance in light of a recent independent test of the Faithfulness Assumption (Micklos et al, 2020). To perform the test, Micklos and colleagues assigned a well-known referential communication task to a pair of participants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, an analysis of the instant messaging conversations revealed that, when matchers signaled communication problems through repairs, the pair was less successful at the task and the directors were correspondingly less confident. From these results, Micklos and colleagues concluded that “interlocutors exhibit (a degree of) sensitivity to problems in communication, and use repairs to signal and address them” (Micklos et al, 2020, p. 14). We agree with the conclusion, which is consistent with cross‐linguistic observations (Dingemanse et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These limitations are in stark contrast with the Faithfulness Assumption. However, as pointed out by Micklos, Walker, and Fay (2020), this conclusion might be undermined by two potential confounds. On the one hand, the limitations we observed might have been caused by the fact that people encountered the communication problems while they were engaged in moments of non-informational interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Repair Avoidance: When Faithful Informational Exchanges Don't Matter That Much

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common-sense intuition suggests that, when people are engaged in informational exchanges, they communicate so as to be reasonably sure that they perform the exchanges faithfully. Over the years, we have found evidence suggesting that this intuition, which is woven into several influential theories of human communication, may be misleading. We first summarize this evidence and discuss its potential limitations. Then, we present a new study that addresses the potential limitations. A confederate instructed participants to "pick up the skask" from a tray containing six objects and move it to a specific location. Since skask is a non-word invented by us, participants had to ask for clarification to perform the instruction faithfully. In contradiction with the intuition that people pursue faithfulness when engaged in informational exchanges, 29 of the 48 participants we tested performed the instruction without asking for clarification. We identified a possible cause for this behavior, which occurred more frequently when avoiding the clarification was unlikely to result in an overt consequence (an error in the execution of the instruction that could be noticed by the confederate or the experimenter). Other factors such as individual differences and the specific interpersonal dynamics of the experimental settings, if they played a role at all, did it to an extent that is unlikely to be comparable to that of the role played by overt consequences. Considered together, our various assessments of the extent to which people engage in faithful informational exchanges converge on a simple conclusion: Communicating faithfully is a substantially demanding task, and people often fail at it. We discuss the implications of this conclusion and speculate on its relevance for understanding the evolutionary past of human communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Repair Avoidance: When Faithful Informational Exchanges Don't Matter That Much

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much experimental evidence and many examples of real communication show that recipients, in the case of non-understanding, ask for a clarification (see e.g. Macagno 2017, Gander 2018, Micklos et al 2020 and the literature there). However, in everyday settings, this is often not the case.…”

Section: The Recipient's Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication

Mustajoki

2021

Russian Journal of Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaction between people is a cornerstone of being human. Despite huge developments in languages and communicative skills, interaction often fails, which causes problems and costs in everyday life and work. An inability to conduct dialogue also produces conflicts between groups of people, states and religions. Therefore, there are good reasons to claim that miscommunication and failures in interaction are among the most serious problems in the world. Researchers from different fields - linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, brain research, philosophy - have tried to tackle this complex phenomenon. Their method-driven approaches enrich our understanding of the features of interaction in many ways. However, what is lacking is an understanding of the very essence of interaction, which needs a more holistic, phenomenon-driven approach. The aim of this paper is to show that the only way to reach this goal is multidisciplinarity, that is, using the results and methods of different fields of research. This is not an easy goal and task because the way of thinking and doing research varies greatly discipline-wise. A further obstacle is the researchers training, which, as a rule, focuses on the tradition of only one field of research. The Multidimensional Model of Interaction provides a good framework for a more holistic approach to interaction by viewing the complex phenomenon from different angles. The model includes various phases of the process of interaction, beginning with the choice of the topic by the speaker and ending with identification of the reference by the recipient, as well as the mental worlds of the interlocutors (knowledge, attitudes, values, emotional state etc.), recipient design (accommodation of speech) and external circumstances.

show abstract

“…Virtual subjects and objects with which a person interacts do not possess the generic qualities of the person himself, but can imitate them with one or another accuracy. Therefore, in the information socialization taking place in the information (digital) sociocultural space, the biological, physiological and psychological proximity of people, necessary for the formation of full-fledged social communication, disappears (Ignatiev, 2017;Micklos et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%