A turn‐taking system allocates speaking turns in conversation. Nonetheless, on occasion speakers start up “out of turn.” This report examines one procedure, Delayed Completion, that speakers use to finish a discontinued turn after an intervening utterance by another speaker. Speakers employ resources intrinsic to the turn‐taking system, such as the projectability of turn unit completion, to regain turn occupancy and to locate the utterance of the out‐of‐turn speaker as having been interruptive. When the intervening utterance makes a next action relevant, Delayed Completion can also cancel the relevance of that next action.

Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion

Meta-analyses of 43 published studies comparingadult women's and men's interruptions duringconversations were conducted. Combined significancelevels and combined effect sizes were analyzed. Acrossstudies, men were significantly more likely than womento use interruptions. This difference, however, wasassociated with a negligible effect size (d = .15). Amore substantial effect size (d = .33) was found when studies looking specifically at intrusive typesof interruption were analyzed separately. Othermoderator variables were found to be related to gendereffects on the use of intrusive interruptions. Most notably, reports of gender differences inintrusive interruptions were more likely and larger inmagnitude when either women (versus men) were firstauthors, participants were observed in naturalistic(versus laboratory) settings, or participants wereobserved interacting in groups of three or more persons(versus in dyads). These results lend support to acontextual-interactive model of gender that emphasizes the importance of situational moderators ongender-related variations in social behavior.

/pdf/meta-analyses-of-gender-effects-on-conversational-29cc8vx3uf.pdf

Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how.

In this paper, we examined physician-patient interactions in terms of the communicative functions accomplished during these encounters. Specifically, the nonverbal communicative exchanges of 38 physician-patient interactions in a family practice clinic were investigated. Two distinctive communicative “patterns” characterized these interactions. First, physicians nonverbally exerted greater dominance and control by employing longer speaking turns, more social touch, and more pauses while speaking than did the patients. Secondly, physicians and patients tended to reciprocate nonverbal behaviors signalling affiliation including gaze, response latencies, body orientations, and gestures. Consistent with previous research, there was a strong positive relationship between patients' satisfaction with health care and perceptions of the physicians' affiliativeness. Although there were few significant effects, physicians perceived less affiliative tended to be more vocally and gesturally active relative to the patients' nonverbal behavior styles. Finally, there were positive relationships between patients' perceptions of physicians' dominance and the physicians' use of task touch, and the extent to which physicians produced more interruptions and maintained more indirect body orientations relative to the patients' performances of these behaviors. The results are discussed in terms of the communicative functions of nonverbal behavior in physician-patient interactions and of patients' preferences for physicians' nonverbal expressiveness.

Nonverbal response patterns in physician-patient interactions: A functional analysis

Patient Satisfaction with Physicians’ Interpersonal Involvement, Expressiveness, and Dominance

This study is aimed at understanding how people edit their own arguments prior to uttering them (Hample, 1984; Hample & Dallinger, 1985a, 1985b). The main categories of editorial criteria are effectiveness, principled objection to type of argument, person-centered issues, and discourse competence standards. Our main purpose here is to begin an account of what sort of person prefers which criteria. Argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), verbal aggression (Infante & Wigley, 1986), interpersonal orientation (Swap & Rubin, 1983), and respondent gender are associated with use of editorial criteria. Results point to two different approaches to editing one's own arguments. The task orientation focuses on effectiveness, and is taken by males, and by people high in verbal aggressiveness and low in interpersonal orientation. The relational orientation is taken by females, and by people low in verbal aggressiveness and high in argument avoidance and interpersonal orientation. Justification for using multiple arguments to instantiate each type of argument, and for using multiple situations was also found.

Individual Differences in Cognitive Editing Standards

This investigation examined the relationship between interpersonal orientation (IO) and speech behavior levels and adaptations. Speech behaviors studied included turn duration, vocalization duration, internal pause duration, response latency, speech rate, and interruptive and non‐interruptive simultaneous speech frequencies. Twenty low IOs (10 males and 10 females) and 20 high IOs (10 males and 10 females) participated in 25‐minute conversations with a same‐sex confederate. The results indicated that: (1) low IO males were least vocally active and expressive and least consistent in their speech performances, and (2) high IO males and low IO females tended to demonstrate greater speech convergence than the other two groups. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Interpersonal orientation and speech behavior

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Thomas L. Murphy

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Interpersonal orientation and speech behavior