Responsiveness and communication medium in dyadic interactions

Abstract

Pairs of subjects discussed a case history in a face-to-face situation, or via closed-circuit TV, telephone, or written messages. In addition to these true conversations, other subjects engaged in pseudoconversations in which they were yoked to one member of an interacting pair. Subjects tested with responsive partners rated them and the discussion more favorably and showed more opinion change than subjects with unresponsive pseudopartners, while communication medium had no effect.Face-to-face interactions are certainly the most frequent and perhaps the most potent of communication media. They are considered to be far superior to influence attempts made by telephone, letter, or any of the mass media. Arguments favoring face-to-face communication tend to fall into two classes: one emphasizes the effectiveness of a live speaker's unidirectional delivery: his ability to use speech inflections, gestures, and other nonverbal cues to transmit persuasive information to the audience; the other emphasizes his ability to participate in bidirectional interaction: to exchange information with his audience, getting feedback and commitment from them and to tailormake his arguments to them (Klapper, 1965; London, 1973;McGuire, 1969;Weiss, 1969).If delivery and presentation are important aspects of impact, media which enhance such transmittal should provide the most impact to a speaker. Relatively "live" media, such as a face-to-face encounter or TV, should be more effective than audio or written contact. A number of experiments in controlled laboratory settings, however, have failed to support this expectation, finding written, oral, and audiovisual communications equally as persuasive as live deliveries (Frandsen, 1963;Keating, 1972;Sawyer, 1955). On the other hand, although few researchers have focused on the exchange process as a determinant of interpersonal effectiveness, there is some indirect evidence that responsiveness between conversants affects the success of an interaction (Davis, 1973;Rosenfeld, 1966; Werner & Latane, 1974).It is the purpose of the present experiment to compare the importance of transmittal and exchange for interpersonal impact. Communication media were varied to assess the effect of transmittal ability, and responsiveness was varied to evaluate the importance of the exchange process. In this experiment, true conversations were compared with pseudoconversations in which subjects were yoked to one member of a truly interacting dyad. 13 METHODMale and female introductory psychology students (n = 143) arrived in the laboratory to participate in a dyadic discussion of a counseling center case history. They were randomly assigned to individual cubicles and allowed to read instructions, a brief biography of a student who had been visiting the center, and comments by one of his friends. Each member of a pair read different comments, leading them to take opposing viewpoints about the case. When they had finished reading, they recorded their initial opinion and then were given the chance to discuss the case...

Enhancing Mutual Understanding in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication by Training

“…Because of the fundamental attribution error, they blame results such as incoherence on low ability and motivation on the part of their communication partners to show interest and friendliness (Bradac, 1988). At the same time, the need for coherence can evoke a coherence bias, so that participants detect interconnectedness and meaningful relationships even if no coherence was intended at all (Hellmann, 1995;Schwarz, 2000;Werner & Latané, 1976). Thus, the fundamental attribution error leads to interpersonal misunderstandings, whereas the coherence bias leads to miscommunication of content.…”

Softening the Blow of Social Exclusion: The Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion

“…The Responsive Theory of Exclusion proposes that both parties will fare better when sources are responsive to targets’ needs. In general, individuals who display responsiveness are better liked, and interactions with them are more successful than interactions with less responsive individuals ( Werner and LatanÉ, 1976 ; Davis and Perkowitz, 1979 ). Therefore, we argue that for social exclusion to be a less damaging process for both targets and sources, sources should display a higher level of responsiveness toward targets.…”