When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners change a speaker's language use

Based on conversation research and work showing that affective cues help to tune information processing to situational demands, it was hypothesized that affective expressions of listeners would influence how speakers represent communicated information in language. Participants were asked to orally communicate an event presented in a film clip to two other participants. These other participants were actually confederates who either adopted a positive or negative nonverbal expression during the story of the participant. Results show that participants talking to smiling listeners used more interpretive, abstract language, whereas participants talking to frowning listeners stayed with the concrete and descriptive facts. These effects of external affective cues on language abstraction were not mediated by the speaker’s mood. Implications for interpersonal conversation are discussed. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The notion that speakers are responsive to the reactions of their conversation partners seems generally accepted. Models about the dynamics of face-to-face conversations view conversation as a joint activity, a duet, in which conversation partners collaborate to create mutual understanding. Speakers constantly monitor their conversation partner and change their utterances depending on the listeners’ replies and feedback (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Clark & Krych, 2004; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986). Even in asymmetrical dialogues, when a listener has no speaking role, the ‘‘mere listener’’ exerts an effect on the way a speaker tells a narrative (Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000; Kraut, Lewis, & Swezey, 1982). How exactly speakers adapt their language to listeners’ reactions, however, remains quite unclear. One important factor that may exert an effect on a speaker’s language use is the nonverbal affective expression of conversation partners, perceivable in facial expression, bodily posture, and speech intonation. Facial expressions of listeners, for instance, convey positive or negative emotional reactions to what is said and can simultaneously function as conversational signals that regulate the structure of talk (Brunner, 1979; Ekman, 1997). It seems highly plausible that the affective expression of a conversation partner has an influence on what you say. Who remains unaffected when their audience frowns upon them, or instead, positively smiles at everything they say? Accordingly, the importance of studying affective influences on interpersonal communication and language use has often been stressed (Forgas, 1999; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Jones & LeBaron, 2002). Yet, to date, research conducted on this topic has been surprisingly scarce, despite the importance of conversation in nearly every aspect of human life, and the consequences that subtle variations in language use can have (Krauss & Fussell, 1996). In the present research, I focus on the effects of listeners’ affective expression on a speaker’s language use. Specifically, I investigated whether speakers, when talking to either a smiling or a frowning audience, would tune to a different level of abstraction when representing information in language. Before detailing the present research, I will describe two distinct areas of literature that, even though they are rarely considered in concert, provide complementing support for theion when representing information in language. Before detailing the present research, I will describe two distinct areas of literature that, even though they are rarely considered in concert, provide complementing support for the hypothesis that nonverbal affective expressions of listeners have an effect on a speaker’s language use, and in particular on language abstraction. , Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV [email protected] s, Ltd. Received 15 May 2008 Accepted 8 August 2008 748 Camiel J. Beukeboom AFFECTIVE EXPRESSIONS AS SIGNALS ABOUT ACCEPTANCE AND UNDERSTANDING A first argument for this hypothesis follows from the assumption that affective expressions of listeners can inform speakers about the level of acceptance and understanding of what is said. Facial expressions of a listener (e.g., a smile or a frown), for instance, signal the listener’s personal response to what a speaker has just said. This might mean agreement or disagreement, amusement, or any other reaction. Simultaneously, a personal reaction implies understanding (or lack of it) and involvement in the conversation (Brunner, 1979). Positive affective expressions of a listener (e.g., a smile) are most likely perceived by speakers as signs of acceptance and understanding, whereas negative expressions (e.g., a frown) will be perceived as signs of rejection or misunderstanding. A vast amount of research has demonstrated that such signals (i.e., back-channel responses) play a crucial role in conversations. Speakers rely on this feedback to efficiently get ideas and information across and, if necessary, repair or adjust their utterances to maintain common ground with their audience (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Krauss, Garlock, Bricker, & McMahon, 1977; Kraut et al., 1982). Aside from providing feedback on specific utterances, a listener’s general affective expression in bodily posture (e.g., leaning forward vs. backward) and facial expression presumably also communicates whether a listener has a general accepting, agreeing attitude or a general critical, disagreeing attitude. Level of abstraction appears to be an aspect of language that is particularly sensitive to signals about the (expected) amount of understanding and acceptance. When conversation partners take information as mutually accepted and understood they can be less precise, and the level of interpretation (i.e., abstraction) increases. Research on reference (Isaacs & Clark, 1987; Krauss & Fussell, 1991) provides indirect evidence for this idea. In the classic paradigm studying reference, participants are required to describe nonsense figures to an addressee. Typically, it is demonstrated that when perceived common ground with the addressee increases, the figures are described in a more interpretive fashion. That is, more figuratively, in terms of what they are like (e.g., ‘‘like a spider,’’ ‘‘Picasso nude’’). Such more interpretive descriptions are only effective when the conversation partners share an interpretive framework, and have reached agreement and mutual understanding. When mutual understanding, or common ground, with the addressee is low, however, the figures are described in a descriptive, analytic, or literal fashion, in terms of their geometric elements (e.g., lines, squares). This is functional because such descriptive, concrete messages can be understood without mutual agreement about how to interpret a stimulus figure (Fussell & Krauss, 1989; Krauss & Weinheimer, 1966). In addition, work on language abstraction suggests that under conditions in which information is taken for granted and processed in an uncritical manner, a tendency toward abstraction is encouraged. When the validity of information (e.g., Bob is dishonest) is challenged, however, for instance by questions such as Why did you say that? or What do you mean?, the likely nature of defence is to provide concrete evidence and refer to a description of an event (e.g., He lied to me; Fiedler, Semin, & Bolten, 1989; Semin & Fiedler, 1988). Thus, when positive affective expressions of listeners are perceived as signals of acceptance and understanding, they should induce an increase in abstraction of a speaker’s message, whereas negative affective expressions (perceived as signals of rejection, criticism, or misunderstanding) should decrease abstraction. AFFECTIVE EXPRESSIONS AND COGNITIVE PROCESSING STYLES Research on the informative function of affective cues complements the above in suggesting that listeners’ affective expressions should change language abstraction. The affect-as-information account argues that both internal affective cues (i.e., mood states; Schwarz, 2002; Schwarz & Clore, 1996) as well as external affective cues (e.g., expressions of others; Soldat & Sinclair, 2001) play an important role in cognitive tuning and regulating information processing styles. In general, individuals who experience or perceive positive affective cues tend to think about information in a global and abstract way, whereas individuals who experience and perceive negative affective cues tune to thinking at a more specific, concrete level. For instance, individuals in a positive, compared to negative mood, have been shown to rely more on general knowledge structures such as stereotypes, and general behavioral scripts (Bless, 2000); to use broader and more inclusive categories when sorting exemplars into categories (Isen & Daubman, 1984); to process visual stimuli more globally (Gasper & Clore, 2002); and prefer to hear more global trait, rather than specific behavioral information (Isbell, Burns, & Haar, 2005). Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 747–756 (2009)