Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (6), 2018, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/SPP on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
Accepted author manuscript, 152 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - 'It's hard to write a good article'
T2 - The online comprehension of excuses as indirect replies
AU - Stewart, Andrew J
AU - Wood, Jeffrey S
AU - Le-Luan, Elizabeth
AU - Yao, Bo
AU - Haigh, Matthew
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (6), 2018, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2021 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/SPP on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
PY - 2018/6/30
Y1 - 2018/6/30
N2 - In an eye-tracking experiment, we examined how readers comprehend indirect replies when they are uttered in reply to a direct question. Participants read vignettes that described two characters engaged in dialogue. Each dialogue contained a direct question (e.g., How are you doing in Chemistry?) answered with an excuse (e.g., The exams are not fair). In response to direct questions, such indirect replies are typically used to avoid a face-threatening disclosure (e.g., doing badly on the Chemistry course). Our goal was to determine whether readers are sensitive during reading to the indirect meaning communicated by such replies. Of the three contexts we examined, the first described a negative, face-threatening situation and the second a positive, non-face threatening situation, while the third was neutral. Analysis of reading times to the replies provides strong evidence that readers are sensitive online to the face-saving function of indirect replies.
AB - In an eye-tracking experiment, we examined how readers comprehend indirect replies when they are uttered in reply to a direct question. Participants read vignettes that described two characters engaged in dialogue. Each dialogue contained a direct question (e.g., How are you doing in Chemistry?) answered with an excuse (e.g., The exams are not fair). In response to direct questions, such indirect replies are typically used to avoid a face-threatening disclosure (e.g., doing badly on the Chemistry course). Our goal was to determine whether readers are sensitive during reading to the indirect meaning communicated by such replies. Of the three contexts we examined, the first described a negative, face-threatening situation and the second a positive, non-face threatening situation, while the third was neutral. Analysis of reading times to the replies provides strong evidence that readers are sensitive online to the face-saving function of indirect replies.
KW - Comprehension/physiology
KW - Eye Movements/physiology
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Online Systems
KW - Reading
KW - Regression, Psychology
KW - Students
KW - Universities
U2 - 10.1080/17470218.2017.1327546
DO - 10.1080/17470218.2017.1327546
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 28478742
VL - 71
SP - 1265
EP - 1269
JO - Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)
JF - Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)
SN - 1747-0218
IS - 6
ER -