Literature DB >> 24671777

Capturing egocentric biases in reference reuse during collaborative dialogue.

Dominique Knutsen1, Ludovic Le Bigot.   

Abstract

Words that are produced aloud--and especially self-produced ones--are remembered better than words that are not, a phenomenon labeled the production effect in the field of memory research. Two experiments were conducted to determine whether this effect can be generalized to dialogue, and how it might affect dialogue management. Triads (Exp. 1) or dyads (Exp. 2) of participants interacted to perform a collaborative task. Analyzing reference reuse during the interaction revealed that the participants were more likely to reuse the references that they had presented themselves, on the one hand, and those that had been accepted through verbatim repetition, on the other. Analyzing reference recall suggested that the greater accessibility of self-presented references was only transient. Moreover, among partner-presented references, those discussed while the participant had actively taken part in the conversation were more likely to be recalled than those discussed while the participant had been inactive. These results contribute to a better understanding of how individual memory processes might contribute to collaborative dialogue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24671777     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0620-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  I said, you said: the production effect gets personal.

Authors:  Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-12

2.  Widening the boundaries of the production effect.

Authors:  Noah D Forrin; Colin M Macleod; Jason D Ozubko
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-10

3.  The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon.

Authors:  Colin M MacLeod; Nigel Gopie; Kathleen L Hourihan; Karen R Neary; Jason D Ozubko
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  When do speakers take into account common ground?

Authors:  W S Horton; B Keysar
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1996-04

5.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.

Authors:  Dale J Barr; Roger Levy; Christoph Scheepers; Harry J Tily
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.059

6.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.

Authors:  S E Brennan; H H Clark
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Production benefits learning: the production effect endures and improves memory for text.

Authors:  Jason D Ozubko; Kathleen L Hourihan; Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2012-07-25

8.  Referring as a collaborative process.

Authors:  H H Clark; D Wilkes-Gibbs
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1986-02

9.  What's learned together stays together: speakers' choice of referring expression reflects shared experience.

Authors:  Kristen S Gorman; Whitney Gegg-Harrison; Chelsea R Marsh; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 3.051

  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Memory for conversation and the development of common ground.

Authors:  Geoffrey L McKinley; Sarah Brown-Schmidt; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-11

2.  Memory and Common Ground Processes in Language Use.

Authors:  Sarah Brown-Schmidt; Melissa C Duff
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2016-10-31

3.  Cultural selection drives the evolution of human communication systems.

Authors:  Monica Tamariz; T Mark Ellison; Dale J Barr; Nicolas Fay
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  #foodie: Implications of interacting with social media for memory.

Authors:  Jordan Zimmerman; Sarah Brown-Schmidt
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2020-04-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.