The Study of Spontaneous Talk.

Soskin, William F.; John, Vera P.

doi:10.1037/11177-012

Cited by 69 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large body of research, however, indicates that men talk more than women do (Argyle et al, 1968;Bernard, 1972;Hilpert et al, 1975;Kester, cited in Kramer, 1974;Marlatt, 1970;Rosenfeld, 1966;Soskin and John, 1963;Strodtbeck, 1951;Swacker, 1975).…”

Section: Conversational Division Of Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties

Kollock¹,

Blumstein²,

Schwartz³

1985

American Sociological Review

194

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years there has been a growing research interest in sex differences in speech (e.g., Thorne and Henley, 1975; Thorne et al., 1983). Conversational behavior, it was once argued, can be viewed as having a "male dialect" and a "female dialect" (Kramer, 1974). More recent commentators feel that such a conceptualization exaggerates and at the same time oversimplifies the differences between men's and women's speech (Thorne et al., 1983: 14). However, neither these authors, nor any others, deny that there are significant sex differences in verbal interaction.As various sex differences were observed, some authors began to look at possible reasons for their existence and at their implications. Notably, some researchers (cf. Fishman, 1978; *Direct all correspondence to: Peter Kollock, Philip Blumstein, and Pepper Schwartz, Department of Sociology, DK-40, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.This research was supported in part by NSF grant SES-7617497 and a research assistantship to the first author from the Graduate School of the University of Washington. A draft of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Antonio, 1984.The authors are grateful to these colleagues for comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Nancy Durbin, Mary Rogers Gillmore, Laurie Russell Hatch, Judith A. Howard, Mary Savage Leber, Anne Martin, Barbara Risman, Donald Stull and Toshio Yamagishi. We would also like to thank Sandra Hayashi for her work in coding the conversations. Thorne and Henley, 1975) felt that these differences were tied not solely to sex, but to power as well. In looking, for example, at differences in the amount of time spent talking, at terms of address, and at intenuption patterns, the implication was that observed sex differences in language mirror the overall difference in power between men and women, and that the way in which people communicate reflects and reinforces the hierarchical relationships that exist around them.As intriguing or intuitively appealing as these questions may be, there have been few studies to test empirically what relationship power and sex have to the observed differences in men's and women's speech.

show abstract

Section: Conversational Division Of Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties

Kollock¹,

Blumstein²,

Schwartz³

1985

American Sociological Review

194

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(SUMMER 1975) has as yet been no adequately controlled test of this assumption. Soskin and John (1963) and Purcell and Brady (1965) noted that their subjects' references to being observed disappeared after one or two days. These findings only suggest rapid adaptation, however, and do not prove either adaptation or the lack of reactive effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this constricted private setting, the intrusive effects of a live observer are especially apparent. For these reasons, several investigators have pioneered development of mechanical recording devices for obtaining naturalistic behavioral data (e.g., Bernal, Gibson, William, and Pesses, 1971;Hoshiko and Holloway, 1968;Nordquist, 1971;Purcell and Brady, 1965;Soskin and John, 1963 server present. In short, this study compared the behavior of children and parents at home as recorded by audiotape recordings in two conditions: with an observer present and with the observer absent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactivity to Home Observation: A Comparison of Audio Recorded Behavior With Observers Present or Absent1

Johnson

Bolstad

1975

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study compared the behavior of family members at home as recorded by audiotape recordings in two conditions: with an observer present or absent. Behavioral differences were expected as a function of differential reactivity to these observational procedures, but none was found, and there was no evidence of adaptation effects in either condition. In general, significant positive correlations were obtained between the rates of recorded behavior in both situations. The implications of these findings for the development of nonreactive observation procedures were discussed.

show abstract

“…An analysis of the products revealed that the nonsocial coding condition produced more low frequency (unusual) words than the social condition. Soskin and John (1963) analyzed a series of ordinary adult conversations. Their data suggested that private speech is a rare or useless category of adult speech.…”

Section: Studies Of Communication Skills In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%