Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters

Vrij, Aldert; Winkel, Frans Willem

doi:10.1007/bf01672219

Cited by 90 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The researchers did not tease apart the contributions of ums or uhs versus pauses. Another study found that people who were instructed to deceive police officers in a mock interrogation used more ums and uhs than those telling the truth (Vrij & Winkel, 1991). If ums are linked to increased evasiveness, and if overhearers are sensitive to this, then overhearers should rate speakers as more evasive with ums than without.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I tested overhearers' interpretations of speakers' speech production difficulty, honesty, and comfort with topic, because many researchers have identified links between these variables and um use (Brotherton, 1979;Christenfeld & Creager, 1996;Fox Tree & Clark, 1997;Hosman & Wright, 1987;Jefferson, 1974;Kasl & Mahl, 1987;Lalljee & Cook, 1969, 1973Martin, 1967;Reynolds & Paivio, 1968;Schachter, Christenfeld, Ravina, & Bilous, 1991;Siegman, 1979;Tannenbaum, Williams, & Hillier, 1965;Vrij & Winkel, 1991). I selected um to study because (a) prior research has suggested that um and uh be treated as distinct elements, and (b) prior research has found effects for uh but not for um, inviting testing with alternative tasks to see if um effects can be found (Fox Tree, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interpreting Pauses and Ums at Turn Exchanges

Tree¹

2002

Discourse Processes

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 3 experiments, this article compares how overhearers interpreted second speakers' contributions to a conversation depending on whether the second speaker responded to a first speaker immediately; paused and responded; said um and responded; or said um, paused, and then responded. The conversational snippets tested were unscripted and diverse; an example of one exchange is, "Are you here because of affirmative action?" (pause, um, or both) "It helped me out a little bit." Overhearers thought speakers had more production difficulty, were less honest, and were less comfortable with topics under discussion when speakers either said um or paused, and even more so with both. The best explanation for the data is that overhearers are judging, for each question asked, what it means for speakers to produce an anticipated or an unanticipated delay.Pauses, ums, and uhs are popularly understood as meaningless or as hindrances to good communication. One common conception of pauses, ums, and uhs is that they are all versions of the same thing. The traditional label for ums and uhs in the research literature, filled pauses, emphasizes this seeming interchangeability. In this view, whether a person uses an um or an uh or a pause would be a matter of personal style or habit, like speaking quickly or speaking softly. However, researchers have shown that they do have meaning; when estimating respondents' knowledge of the answers to questions, overhearers interpreted ums and uhs as amplifying what pauses did (Brennan & Williams, 1995). For example, overhearers judged an immediate "I don't know" to "What is the answer to Question 4?" as reflecting more commitment to not knowing the answer than "[pause] I don't know," which in turn reflected more commitment than "um I don't know." Similarly, overhearers thought an immediate answer, such as "Ottawa," reflected more commitment to the answer than "[pause] Ottawa," which reflected more commitment than "um Ottawa." Therefore, it mattered whether overhearers heard a pause or an um or an uh, DISCOURSE PROCESSES, 34(1), 37-55 Copyright © 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Jean E. Fox Tree, Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064. E-mail: foxtree@cats.ucsc.edu although ums and uhs had similar effects (Brennan & Williams, 1995). In other work, researchers have suggested further that ums and uhs are used to signal upcoming delays, with ums signaling major delays and uhs minor (Clark & Fox Tree, 2002;Clark & Wasow, 1998;Fox Tree, 2001;Smith & Clark, 1993).There has been some experimental evidence to support the delay-signaling view. Smith and Clark (1993) found that in answering factual questions like, "What is the capital of Canada?," people reliably used um before a long delay and uh before a short delay in the amount of time it took for them to answer. Fox Tree (2001) found that people recognized words in a speech stream more quickly after uh than when the uh was digitally excised. In t...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting Pauses and Ums at Turn Exchanges

Tree¹

2002

Discourse Processes

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that the overwhelming majority (about 95%, see [17,18]) of poker players are male, female participants will not be included in the experiment due to unknown and possibly confounding gender effects. On the other hand, there is evidence [29] that cultural background affects nonverbal behaviour.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Science and Detection of Tilting

Wei

Palomäki

Yan

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tilting refers to losing control due to negative emotions, behaving erratically, and thereby suffering adverse consequences.The term tilt originated in poker playing communities, where it is often a consequence of so called bad beats, i.e. losing with an unlikely-to-lose poker hand. Often resulting in devastating monetary losses, tilting is ubiquitous and well known in poker, but rarely studied despite its significance. In this paper, we argue that tilting is a fertile topic for interdisciplinary research both for psychologists and computer scientists. Specifically, we propose to study the manifestation of tilting via facial emotion expressions, and motivate the development of an automatic tilt-detection system. The scientific understanding of the psychology of tilting can be increased via a computing approach, which has not been previously attempted. Automatic tilting detection will lead to a practical technology that reduces poker players' monetary losses and improves their well being through reduced tilting. We also argue that while tilting is best known as a poker phenomenon, it also exists in other contexts. Thus, the idea we suggest is a novel application of computer vision, affective computing and multimedia technologies in the real world, across many domains.

show abstract

“…Zo wordt 'oogcontact' tijdens een gesprek in de ene cultuur positief gewaardeerd, terwijl het in een andere cultuur als zeer ongepast wordt ervaren. Vergelijkbare verschillen zijn er aan te wijzen bij bijvoorbeeld de interpretatie van glimlachen (Pennycook, 1985;Hurley, 1992;Kellerman, 1992;Vrij & Winkel, 1991;Vrij, 1994).…”

Section: De Betekenis Van Lichaamstaal In Een Gehoorsituatieunclassified