Failure to (Mis)communicate: Linguistic Convergence, Lexical Choice, and Communicative Success in Dyadic Problem Solving

Failure to (Mis)communicate: Linguistic Convergence, Lexical Choice, and Communicative Success in Dyadic Problem Solving Alexandra Paxton (paxton.alexandra@gmail.com) Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced Merced, CA 95343 USA Jennifer M. Roche (jroche@bcs.rochester.edu) Alyssa Ibarra (aibarra@bcs.rochester.edu) Michael K. Tanenhaus (mtan@bcs.rochester.edu) Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627 USA Abstract Interpersonal Convergence The current study evaluates how lexical choice impacts task performance in dyads tasked with building an object together without a shared visual environment. Our analyses suggest that, while interpersonal lexical convergence in target linguistic categories promotes successful communication, success does not require convergence in all categories. In the absence of shared visual workspaces and face-to-face communication, success increases when interlocutors converge in establishing common ground but decreases with increased co-occurrence of knowledge-state words, perhaps due to mutual hedging and uncertainty. Finally, miscommunication increases with use of ambiguous spatial terms and with markers of confusion, pointing to unique lexical signatures for successful and unsuccessful communication. Research on interpersonal interaction over the last several decades demonstrates that individuals tend to become increasingly attuned to one another over the course of an interaction across a variety of communication channels. This phenomenon can be generally referred to as interpersonal synchrony or convergence. Evidence for interpersonal convergence has been found across a number of dimensions: Interacting individuals begin to have more similar linguistic choices (e.g., Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002; Pickering & Garrod, 2004), body movements (e.g., Richardson, Marsh, Goodman, & Schmidt, 2007), gaze patterns (e.g., Dale, Kirkham, & Richardson, 2011), and even physiological responses (e.g., Helm, Sbarra, & Ferrer, 2011). A prevailing view of interpersonal convergence suggests that it serves to facilitate interaction and strengthen social bonds (e.g., Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, & Chartrand, 2003). Greater degrees of convergence have been linked to increased rapport (Hove & Risen, 2009) and liking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). While shared environment, goals, and stimuli facilitate convergence (e.g., Shockley, Richardson, & Dale, 2009), interpersonal convergence has also been shown in the absence of face-to-face communication. Individuals who hear recorded speeches will exhibit similar gaze (Richardson & Dale, 2005) and neural patterns (Stephens et al., 2010), and producing speech with similar stress patterns leads to synchronized postural sway, even when partners cannot see one another (Shockley, Richardson, & Dale, 2009). Other work has found that individuals rate computer-mediated conversations more highly when they linguistically converge with their partners (Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002), and coordination and task performance improve during computer-mediated communication when individuals share virtual work environments (Introne & Alterman, 2006). Interpersonal convergence appears to be a robust phenomenon that can occur even in relatively impoverished communication. Interacting individuals may influence one another even when they have only a single communication channel available (e.g., text; Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002) or when speaker and Keywords: communication; convergence; coordination; joint action; miscommunication; psycholinguistics Introduction Joint action, broadly defined, is our ability to work cooperatively with others to achieve a shared goal (Clark, 1992). While many philosophers have focused on higher- level processes in achieving joint action (e.g., Bratman, 1992), cognitive scientists have framed much of their work around the ways in which lower-level processes can contribute to joint action (e.g., Tollefsen & Dale, 2012). From dancing the tango to preparing a meal, we often work with others to achieve mutual goals, and we rely heavily on our shared environments and one another to coordinate our actions (e.g., Sebanz, Bekkering, & Knoblich, 2006). However, with the use of mobile technologies and computer-mediated communication on the rise, we increasingly find ourselves coordinating with others who do not share our physical environment. As technology breaks down barriers to collaboration imposed by long distance, it creates new questions about the ways in which we communicate during joint action. A major goal of the present project is to examine how individuals work together to achieve a mutual goal without the benefit of a shared visual field or face-to-face communication. Here, we focus on the impact of miscommunication on task performance from a framework heavily influenced by work on interpersonal convergence and joint action.