Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?

Kruger, Justin; Epley, Nicholas; Parker, Jason; Ng, Zhi-Wen

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925

Cited by 301 publications

(246 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

227

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As suggested by the author, this counter-intuitive result likely reflects different discourse goals and risks associated with the different communication channels, illustrating how irony is used as a means to communicate particular intentions that are differentially assisted by disambiguating devices, such as prosody in FtF communication or emoticons or ellipsis in CMC contexts. Moreover, some circumstances might increase speakers' egocentric biases that they will be understood, and varying contexts and communication medium differences can affect judgments in how we formulate our communicative acts (Keysar & Henly, 2002;Kruger, Epley, Parker, & Ng, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech

Bryant

2010

Discourse Processes

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech

Bryant

2010

Discourse Processes

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Beyond the semantic content in speech, a humanlike voice also conveys paralinguistic information (e.g., volume, tone, and rate) that provides additional insight into one's thoughts and feelings. Indeed, voice evolved in large part as a tool to communicate an agent's mind to others through speech (Pinker & Bloom, 1990), and people can more accurately estimate others' mental states when they hear someone speak than when they read the same words in text (Hall & Schmid Mast, 2007;Kruger, Epley, Parker, & Ng, 2005). Therefore, we predicted that communicating with a humanlike voice would make an agent seem more like a person (vs. machine) than communicating the same content through other communication media (e.g., reading text, observing body language, or speaking with a voice that lacks critical paralinguistic cues).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mistaking minds and machines: How speech affects dehumanization and anthropomorphism.

Schroeder

Epley

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treating a human mind like a machine is an essential component of dehumanization, whereas attributing a humanlike mind to a machine is an essential component of anthropomorphism. Here we tested how a cue closely connected to a person’s actual mental experience—a humanlike voice—affects the likelihood of mistaking a person for a machine, or a machine for a person. We predicted that paralinguistic cues in speech are particularly likely to convey the presence of a humanlike mind, such that removing voice from communication (leaving only text) would increase the likelihood of mistaking the text’s creator for a machine. Conversely, adding voice to a computer-generated script (resulting in speech) would increase the likelihood of mistaking the text’s creator for a human. Four experiments confirmed these hypotheses, demonstrating that people are more likely to infer a human (vs. computer) creator when they hear a voice expressing thoughts than when they read the same thoughts in text. Adding human visual cues to text (i.e., seeing a person perform a script in a subtitled video clip), did not increase the likelihood of inferring a human creator compared with only reading text, suggesting that defining features of personhood may be conveyed more clearly in speech (Experiments 1 and 2). Removing the naturalistic paralinguistic cues that convey humanlike capacity for thinking and feeling, such as varied pace and intonation, eliminates the humanizing effect of speech (Experiment 4). We discuss implications for dehumanizing others through text-based media, and for anthropomorphizing machines through speech-based media.

show abstract

“…It is common to remark on the difficulty of managing tone in IM or email environments (see, for example, Kruger et al, 2005), but we suggest that this difficulty might be experienced more acutely by people who are not accustomed to conducting richly detailed conversations in such environments (which in turn might occur for a wide range of reasons, including, perhaps, preferences for using the telephone or comfort in face-to-face conversations). Because neither…”

Section: [Price and Kerschbaum]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stories of Methodology: Interviewing Sideways, Crooked and Crip

Price

Kerschbaum

2016

CJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, written in a combination of collaborative and singular voices, we tell the stories of shaping an interdependent crip methodology while conducting a qualitative interview study with 33 disabled faculty members. Our central argument is that disability crips methodology. In other words, centering disability from the beginning of a research project, and committing to collective access, reveal specific ways that disability changes the assumptions and outcomes that ordinarily characterize-or are assumed to characterize-research situations. To illuminate those specific ways, we focus on three dimensions of qualitative research that emerged as particularly important to our interdependent methodology: time, gaze, and emotion. We've stressed reliability and significance. We've omitted the first person in (some of) our reports. We've toed (some of) the lines. KeywordsIn saying this, we don't mean we're complicit with ableist or otherwise reductive methodologies; on the contrary, we have learned a great deal about the creativity and grace required for activities such as conducting statistical analyses. But we have been steering away from speaking through first-person stories, because the audiences we've been working to persuade tend to listen to different kinds of language, a different understanding of how data signify.Ironically, at the same time that we've been arguing for the broad significance and (to a degree) generalizability of our work, we've been diving deep into individuals' stories. At this moment (summer 2016), we are in the final stages of data-gathering for an interview study with disabled faculty. With 33 interviews complete, we are saturated in stories. And we're bursting with our own stories, too, because we've learned that two disabled researchers conducting a collaborative interview study with disabled faculty is anything but simple. In other words, when disability is assumed to be an important part of the qualitative interview situation (rather than something external that "enters" the situation and then must be accommodated or compensated for), the interview's normative framework is both exposed and challenged. Crucially, our choices as researchers are not simply an effort to make the interview Price & Kerschbaum, "Stories of Methodology" CJDS 5.3 (October 2016) 21 space more "inclusive" by retrofitting previous interview methodologies. Rather, they compose a process of cripping the interview space itself-restructuring it and reconsidering the power dynamics that give rise to its normative structure.Our methodology draws upon grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006;Strauss and Corbin, 1994), narrative analysis (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000;Wolf, 1992), and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003;Gee, 2012), as well as the disability-studies researchers who have preceded us. Bringing together these approaches gave us some structure to work with. For example, we began as most grounded-theory projects do, with an open-coding process, through which themes emerged as we repeatedly revie...

show abstract

Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think?

Cited by 301 publications

References 60 publications

Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech

Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech

Mistaking minds and machines: How speech affects dehumanization and anthropomorphism.

Stories of Methodology: Interviewing Sideways, Crooked and Crip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About