Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boltz, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 2, 103-138 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X05275734

Temporal Dimensions of Conversational Interaction

The Role of Response Latencies and Pauses in Social Impression Formation

Marilyn G. Boltz

Haverford College, mboltz{at}haverford.edu

Four experiments examined whether variations in response latencies to a speaker’s query can be used to infer certain characteristics of a respondent. Across all experiments, participants listened to a set of monologues that varied in their underlying speech act (honesty, confidence, certainty, compliance). In Experiment 1, participants were asked to produce a designated one-word response to each monologue with the latency that conveyed either the most favorable or unfavorable impression. Experiment 2 relied on a perceptual rating task and confirmed that those latencies produced to express the most positive and negative impressions were in fact perceived as such by an independent group of participants. More important, the acceptance range of response latency behavior varied with different speech acts and evaluative dimensions. Experiments 3 and 4 extended these findings by revealing that the duration of inter-sentence pauses of a speaker’s monologue appears to be the primary determinant of response timing behavior. As a set, these results suggest that people adopt different criteria when judging different types of potential deception and this in turn can be facilitated by processes related to speaker accommodation.

Key Words: response latency • social impression formation • timing behavior • deception


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?